The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence, the need to balance personal liberty with the security of the community, and the possibility of a change in circumstances warranting a subsequent bail application.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. This order will set at rest application under Section 498 Cr. P.C. filed by applicant-Peer Mushtaq Ahmad, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 24/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/201/120-B Ranbir Penal code read with Section 5, 5(1)(d) 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Applicant was arrested on 15th November 2013 in connection with case FIR No. 24/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 201, 120B Ranbir Penal code read with Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Applicant is presently lodged in Central Jail Srinagar. Charge was framed against him on 12th March 2015.

3. The moment bid for grant of bail was made by applicant, twenty witnesses including statement of the approver are said to have been examined by prosecution. 50 persons are said to be enlisted amongst accused persons, including applicant in the aforementioned cases and all of them, except applicant, according to counsel for petitioner, are said to have been released on bail. The first bail application moved by applicant on 29th January 2014, was dismissed vide order dated 12th February 2014. There against Revision Petition was directed. Alongside thereto bail application, bearing No. 55/2014, under Section 498 Cr.P.C. was preferred by him. However, said bail application did not succeed and was dismissed vide order dated 30th March, 2014 by Division Bench of this Court.

4. Applicant on 20th February, 2015 initiated second round for vouchsafe of bail before Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. The application, vide order dated 2nd May 2015, saw the same destination as was seen by first application. Special Judge Anticorruption dismissed the application on the ground that trial of the case was to take some time and there was no change in the circumstances warranting a fresh look into the plea of applicant for bail. Against order dated 2nd May 2015, Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2015, was preferred by applicant. Concomitant to Criminal Revision, bail application No. 46/2015, was also preferred. Respondents opposed bail application, inter alia, on the ground that out of 78 witnesses only 06 witnesses had been examined and remaining 72 witnesses were yet to be examined and if petitioner was enlarged on bail he would try to win over the witnesses. Given the said plea of respondents, the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to enlarge applicant on bail. The bail application was dismissed vide order dated 20th August, 2016. The Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, was directed to conduct trial of the case on day to day basis and complete the same in accordance with law within a period of six months and if prosecution or accused persons were not cooperating for conduct of trial, the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, would compel presence of accused persons and witnesses in accordance with law. Insofar as applicants treatment was concerned as he was stated to be not well, the Division Bench pointed out that jail authorities could take care of applicant by giving him best treatment.

5. The instant application, on its filing, initially came up for consideration on 5th November, 2015. Notice was waived by counsel for respondents. Reply and objections were directed to be filed.

6. Respondents have filed reply. They insist that the investigation conducted reveals that applicant was Chairman of Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) and as Chairman, BOPEE, he was sole custodian and trustee of the question papers for Common Entrance Test (GET) 2012. Applicant, as averred by respondents in their reply, was found to have abused his official position by making sale of question papers against consideration prior to conduct of examination and conferred undue benefit upon him and accused beneficiaries. The applicant is said to have dishonestly and fraudulently made available question papers along with answer key to his associate prior to conduct of examinati