The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations, the accused's criminal antecedents, and the need to prevent interference with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

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

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel has drawn attention of this court to bail order of co-accused CRM-M-34192-2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by this court. Counsel for petitioner claims bail on the grounds of parity and does not press on merits.

4. State does not dispute the fact that the allegations against the petitioner are not more severe than co accused who was granted bail.

REASONING:

5. The allegations are getting a sum of Rs 5.75 lacs for sale of property , and the contract was not executed because the seller lacked title. Perusal of the order dated 26.08.2022 vide which co accused was granted bail covers petitioner's case on the grounds of parity for the reasons that they are identically placed. It is appropriate to reproduce paragraph 6 of this order.

'Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted on instructions that sum of Rs. 5.75 lacs was returned to the son-in-law of the complainant and he is merely a witness. 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 paragraph 4 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail.'

6. 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 i