V.B. Gupta, J.-The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482, Cr.P.C, seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent by Smt. I.K. Kochar, Spl Judge, New Delhi.

2. As per the averments made in the present petition, the CBI has arrested the respondent in this case on 25th September, 2007 for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.c. Act, 1988 and Section 120B read with Sections 420,467,468 and 471 of IPC and he remained in police custody for 15 days and thereafter now he is ~n judicial custody.

3. Vide order dated 18th October, 2007, the learned Spl. Judge has granted bail to the respondent.

4. The respondent had been found to have influenced the witnesses and fabricated evidence in order to mislead the investigation agency. ubsequent to his arrest, he had made a disclosure statement, pertaining to forgery of documents such as Wills, bank instruments and property related documents for acquiring immovable assets in various Benami names and laundering his corrupt earning through bank accounts being operated in the names of various persons. The vital evidence, both documentary and oral, in continuation of these disclosures, is yet to be recovered/recorded.

In these facts and circumstances of the matter, the order passed by learned Spl. Judge is bad in law, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. So, it is prayed that bail granted to the respondent be cancelled.

5. In reply filed by the respondent it is stated that during the course of investigation, the respondent submitted numerous affidavits to the petitioner, in order to assist the investigation, in which he provided details regarding his immovable assets and their resources. In writ petition No. 067/2005, filed by the respondent against the above mentioned FIR before the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, the respondent had been directed by the High Court to consider the explanation of the petitioner regarding the allegations against him and also not to make any arrest in the case without proper justifying material. The Court also stated that there was no material to show that the respondent herein was likely to abscond from any process of law. More than 21h years after lodging of the FIR and his having co-operated through out the investigation the respondent was arrested by the petitioner on 25th September, 2007 and thereafter he remained for 15 days in police custody, which is the maximum permissible period as per law. Throughout this period, the respondent underwent interrogation and co-operated with petitioners investigation.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Spl Judge has passed the impugned bail order and the bail order discloses due application of judicial mind to the facts of material on record. It is neither cryptic nor based on any extraneous factors and as such cannot be said to be perverse. The present case does not pertain to an offence of a heinous nature. Where two views are possible, the view favouring the accused should be taken. It is denied that respondent had influenced the witnesses or had fabricated the evidence. The present petition filed by the petitioner should be dismissed.

7. Learned Counsel for both the parties have advanced arguments at length.

8. Counsel for petitioner, in support of his contentions has also cited various judgments viz. Gurcharan Singh v. State, AIR SC 179; Puran v. Ram Bilas and Ors., III (2001) SLT 869=II (2001) CCR 255 (SC)=(2001) 6 SCC 338;

State v. Amardeep Singh Gill, 1999 (Vol. 80) DLT718 and State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh, AIR 1962 SC 253.

9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent cited Vashishtha Rambabu Andhale v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., IV (2004) CCR 397; Ramcharan v. State of M.P., IV (2006) CCR 61 (SC)=(2006) 1 SCC(Cri) 511; Nityanand Rai v.State of Bihar and Anr., III (2005) SLT 624=II (2005) CCR 124 (SC)=2005 SCC(Cri) 1159; Puran v. Ram Bilas and Ors. (supra) and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal