JUDGMENT

Kamlesh Sharma, J. - The applicant, Shri Anil Sharma, son of Pandit Sukh Ram, presently Member of H.P. Legislative Assembly from Mandi Constituency and former Minister of State for Youth Services, Sports and Forests in Himachal Pradesh Government, has moved this application for pre-arrest bail. He is apprehending his arrest in Case F.I.R. No. RC 6(A)/96 ACU IV dated 12-10-1996 registered in Delhi Special Police Establishment ACU IV, New Delhi Branch, under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called "the Act").

2. The allegations as stated in the F.I.R are that during the course of investigation of cases under Section 13 of the Act against Pandit Sukh Ram, searches of various premises belonging to him and the bail-applicant, who is his son, were conducted as a result of which it was found that the bail applicant has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income for which, prima facie, there is no explanation. The movable and immovable assets stated to have been recovered/detected in the possession of the applicant are:

A plot of land Khata Khatauni No. 85/92, Khasra 1312 measuring 243.20 sq. mts. at Upper Mahal, Lakkar Bazar, Jakhu, Shimla valuing Rs. 67,200/- purchased in the name of his wife in July, 1995.

Bank Account in Punjab and Sind Bank. Shimla East having a cash balance of Rupees 1,56,740/- as in August, 1996.

A Maruti Esteem Car purchased in July 1 August 1995 in the name of M/s. Seemax Construction P. Ltd. New Delhi for Rs. 4,50,000/- as benami.

Household articles found during the search to the tune of Rs. 3,66,600/- approx.

One Gypsy model 1992, Regn. No. DL-3CC-4502 in the name of one N. Zameer for Rs. 2,25,000/- approx. as benami.

Jewellery items worth more than Rs. 4 lacs were also found in the locker of SBI Mandi in the name of Smt. Sunita Sharma w/o Anil Sharma.

Total assets movable and immovable worth about Rs. 16,65,000/-."

3. The applicant has filed an additional affidavit in the Court today stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case in order to harass and humiliate his father Pandit Sukh Ram out of political vendetta. According to him, the Maruti Esteem Car and the Gypsy referred to in the F.I.R. do not belong to him and the value of the household goods has been exaggerated. It is also stated in the affidavit that the ornaments belong to his wife which she had got about 12 years ago at the time of her marriage and the plot of land at Lakkar Bazar was purchased by her from her own funds. The applicant has also pointed out that he has joined investigation on more than twelve occasions from 30-8-1996 to 16-9-1996 and also on 25-10-1996 in pursuance to the FAX message received by him in the evening on 23-10-1996 even after he was granted interim bail by this Court on 19-101996. He has further undertaken that he will fully cooperate and join investigation as and when required by the C.B.I. and will not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail application on the ground that the investigation is at the initial stage and if the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail, he will influence the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that the applicant has already been interrogated on twelve occasions from 30-8-1996 to 16-9-1996 and also on 25-10-1996 when his statement was recorded.

5. Besides hearing oral arguments, this Court has also gone through the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the C.B.I.

6. By now, it is well settled that bail and not jail is the normal rule. Before granting bail in cases involving non-bailable offences, the Court is required to take into consideration the matters, such as, the nature and seriousness of the offence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and tampering with the prosecution evidence, circumstances which may be peculiar to the accused larger inter