The court's discretion in granting bail and imposing conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 21 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Avnish Pandey, who stated that he was an employee in Premier Logistics, Nagpur. The said Company had a contract with DMW, Patiala. As per the contract, Premier Logistics was to transfer the material/goods to the DMW, Patiala from various places. One Rahul Singh was also employed by Premier Logistics and he was assigned the duty to look after the delivery of the goods to DMW, Patiala. It was also his duty to deploy the vehicle/s for delivery of goods and he was getting the vehicles from 'Singh Road Carrier' and 'Solanki Freight Carrier It was alleged Anshika Singh and the petitioner-Vikram Singh were proprietors of Singh Road Carrier and Solanki Freight Carrier, respectively. An amount of Rs 9,35,300/- was obtained by Rahul Singh in the name of Singh Road Carrier, Patiala and an amount of Rs.8,37,000/- in the name of Solanki Freight Carrier, Patiala Later on, it was discovered that no goods had been transported on behalf of Premier Logistics, Nagpur by Rahul Singh. It is, thus, alleged that Premier Logistics had been cheated of an amount of Rs.17,72,300/- by Rahul Singh. The petitioner being the proprietor of Singh Road Carrier, Patiala had conspired with Rahul Singh for cheating the complainant Company.

4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the State opposes bail.

REASONING:

6. Given the penal provisions imposed and the sentence provided by the Legislature, the nature of allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, and one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course-correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.

7. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless