The judgment emphasizes that the purpose of bail is to secure the accused's presence at trial and that deprivation of liberty should be based on serious considerations. It also highlights the need to balance the seriousness of economic offences with the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner D. K. Sethi has approached this Court by way of filing present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.RCBD1/2015/E/0010 dated 19.10.2015 registered by CBI, BS & FC, New Delhi under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Section 13(2) & 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated, whereas he has not played any role. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR and as per the allegations the role of the petitioner is at par with co-accused S. K. Sinha, who has been found innocent in the investigation. The allegations in the FIR pertain to credit facilities sanctioned by the bank, which were availed by the firm M/s R. S. Fastners, which was the customer of the bank. Petitioner joined his duty on promotion as Chief Manager on 10.09.2010. A proposal was submitted by the said firm for expansion-cum-modernisation of their industrial unit in the year 2010. For the purpose of proposed expansion, said firm purchased land and building over a plot measuring 6750 square yards. The sale deed of the said property indicated the consideration amount of Rs. 1.30 crores. The title of the property was found in order stating to be clear from all encumbrances. Learned counsel further submits that for examination of proposal of additional credit facilities, a techno economic viability study was got conducted through Manager (Industry) in the concerned branch. Apart from that study, two separate valuations reports were also obtained in respect of assets including added assets of the industrial unit. Said valuations were obtained from two separate approved valuers of the bank. The value of assets was Rs. 11.83 crores and Rs. 12.82 crores respectively. The report was submitted to the independent officer i.e. Manager (Industries) who was not only having technical knowledge about the industry but was also having good experience. The proposal of firm for expansion and modernisation of industrial unit was as per norms and parameters of the bank. Learned senior counsel further submits that each and every document as well as financial data was taken into consideration with all transparency, independent scrutiny and audit by the auditors. Learned senior counsel submits that there was no deviation from the norms, policy and procedure adopted by the bank. The credit facilities were sanctioned by the Head Office vide sanction letter dated 27.01.2011, 15.05.2012 and 29.03.2013. The company was sanctioned enhancement of limit from Rs. 36 crores to Rs. 48 crores vide Head Office sanction dated 15.05.2012. The amount of loan was directly paid through draft/RTGS from the concerned branch of the bank. Learned counsel also submits that internal audits and a stock audit were also conducted through independent professionals. No material deviation was found in the conduct of business of the borrower firm. The industrial unit of the borrowers was also jointly inspected by the petitioner along with other officers of the bank and same was found to be running satisfactory as per unanimous opinion of the inspecting team. Learned senior counsel also submits that no offence is made out under Section 420 IPC. Even no allegation under Section 467 and 471 IPC has been attributed to the petitioner as all the documents were subject to scrutiny not only by petitioner but additionally and independently by Circle Office of the Bank as well as its Head Office. Those documents were also subjected to repeated collateral securities by concurrent auditors, CARD auditors, statutory auditors and Inspectors from time to time. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner is retired officer of the bank and he is ready to join the Court proceedings on each and every date of hearing an