Granting bail on stringent conditions to prevent potential influence on the investigation and ensure a fair trial.

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

4. The State opposes the bail by submitting that the offence is massive and health care system is being played by the people like petitioner who are thoroughly corrupt.

REASONING:

5. Allegations against the petitioner are that he being working as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer with Northern Railway Department, had demanded Rs.15 lacs from the complainant for clearance of bills of his hospital which is a empanelled hospital. It was also alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was caught red handed while receiving bribe of Rs.5 lacs which were recovered from him and in this regard, there is an audio recording of conversation between the complainant and petitioner.

6. As per paragraph 3 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2023. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

7. In Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, Supreme Court holds,

[28] We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI.

8. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

9. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

10. In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M- 27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed,

[10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, an