Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-38118 of 2012, M-3345 of 2013, M-4860 of 2013, M-5640 of 2013, M-6423 of 2013, M-7607 of 2013, M-7608 of 2013 and M-7791 of 2013 as they arise from the same FIR.

2. The petitioners in the abovesaid petitions have approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in a case arising out of FIR No.04 dated 21.7.2012 registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, District Bathinda, Punjab, wherein the challan and supplementary challans have already been filed.

3. The brief facts, as mentioned in the FIR, are to the effect that Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, conducted an Inquiry dated 2.5.2012 against Joginder Singh XEN. During inquiry, it was found that Joginder Singh XEN and Satpal Bansal, Superintendent, who has since retired, had prepared a forged LOC vide letter No.1024 dated 14.6.2010 for Rupees two crore twenty five lacs and LOC letter No.1124 dated 3.8.2012 for Rupees two hundred eighty one lacs in connivance with each other and purported to have been issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Patiala. In fact, it had not been issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Patiala. Joginder Singh, XEN, in connivance with Treasury Officer, Mansa, has obtained Rupees four crore seventy five lacs after releasing the same from the treasury. In addition to this, forged and fabricated bills and letters were prepared and an amount of Rs. 46,26,871/- was misappropriated. By doing the alleged acts, accused Joginder Singh, XEN, PWD (B&R), Mansa, and Satpal Bansal, retired Superintendent, had committed offence punishable under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC read with Sections 13(1)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. During investigation of the case other persons, namely, contractors Paras Ram, Basant Singh, Anil Kumar and Jaswinder Singh etc. were nominated as accused.

5. The investigation in this case has been completed and challan has been presented and some of the subsequently nominated accused are yet to be arrested.

6. Heard.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners, namely, Anil Kumar, Jaswinder Singh Thekedar, Joginder Singh Sidhu, Satpal Bansal, Khushwant Singh Kahrbanda, Basant Singh, Paras Ram and Sarabjit Singh are behind bars since 19.9.2012, 19.9.2012, 25.7.2012, 19.9.2012, 31.1.2013, 19.9.2012, 19.9.2012 and 17.9.2012, respectively. Different roles have been attributed to the petitioners in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that although there are allegations against the petitioners of being involved in economic offence of huge magnitude, we cannot lose sight of the fact that investigation agency has completed the investigation and chargesheets have been submitted and even the supplementary charge-sheets have been submitted. Petitioners are in custody since different dates ranging from 25.7.2012 to 19.9.2012. As such they are in custody approximately for seven months. They are not required for further investigation. To substantiate their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that pre-trial incarceration is not permissible in view of the provisions of the Constitution of India and undertrial cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period. If that is done then that will amount to an harsher punishment in spite of the fact that guilt is yet to be pronounced. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that ‘bail but not the jail’ is the basic principle. It is further argued that there is no likelihood of the accused fleeing from the process of Court and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The entire case is based on the documents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. C.B.I. and another, [2012(2) Law Herald (SC) 1362] : 2012(1) RCR (Criminal) 870 (