The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious and compassionate exercise of discretion in bail decisions, along with the imposition of stringent conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner, incarcerating since Feb 3, 2022, upon his arrest in the FIR captioned above, came up before this Court under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 27 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The allegations are qua the issuance of bogus valuation certificates.

4. Learned Senior counsel submits that his case is identical to the case of the co- accused namely Major Sanjeev Bhatia, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2021 passed in CRM-M-42067-2020. He further submits that the petitioner was arraigned as accused vide third police report filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and is in custody since 03.02.2022. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Director of the company way back in 14.11.2019. He further contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Ld. counsel representing the U.T. could not distinguish the fact that how the case of the petitioner is not at parity with the case of the Major Sanjeev Bhatia.

REASONING:

6. Since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the case of the co- accused/Major Sanjeev Bhatia, who was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) and the matter was not challenged as such, the petitioner makes out a case for bail. Furthermore, 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 4 to 12 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 countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it mu