The judgment established the principle that the object of bail is to secure the accused's appearance at trial and emphasized the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, balancing the accused's right to liberty with the society's interest in maintaining peace and law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein seeks bail in FIR No. RC0042022A0004, dated 11.04.2002, registered with Police Station CBI, ACB, Jammu for offence under Section 7 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amendment Act, 2018).

2. As per the prosecution case, petitioner herein a Police Inspector, as per the complaint of one Mohd. Ashraf, Selection Grade Constable in J&K Police, demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000/- for closing a complaint filed against the said complainant- Mohd. Ashraf.

3. As per the prosecution version after carrying out the investigation of the complaint, FIR No. RC0042022A0004, dated 11.04.2002 came to be registered and upon laying a trap on11.04.2022, the petitioner herein came to be caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in presence of independent witnesses.

4. According to the learned counsel, earlier a bail application came to be filed by the petitioner herein before the Court of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (CBI Cases) Jammu on 12.04.2022, which came to be dismissed on the very same date.

5. According to the learned counsel, the allegations leveled in the FIR in question against the petitioner are highly motivated and full of personal grudge of the complainant with motive to tarnish the image of the petitioner. The petitioner is contended to have been falsely implicated in the case and held in judicial custody ever since his arrest.

6. According to the learned counsel, the continuous detention of the petitioner would amount of pre-trial conviction and will not serve any purpose in view of the nature of the allegations.

7. Objections have been filed to the petition by the respondents wherein it is being stated that the petitioner while holding a responsible post has committed a serious offence while demanding and accepting bribe from the complainant for discharging an official duty. The prayer of grant of bail is being opposed in the objections by the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Before adverting to the rival submissions of the appearing counsel for the parties, it would be advantageous and appropriate to refer to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court from time to time in the matter relating to bail. The Apex Court in case titled as Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2012 (1) SCC 40, laid down as follows:-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty".

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the “pointing finger of accusation” against the appellants is 'the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they