Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity to balance individual liberty with societal interests during bail considerations.

Judgment

Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.:- In the instant petition, as cast under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the concession of his being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No. 35 dated 06.02.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, registered at Police Station City Safidon, District Jind.

2. The prosecution agency was set into motion on a complaint made by the Union Bank of India, Safidon, District Jind, on 06.02.2022, against one Surender and one Bhupender, both sons of Karan Singh, resident of Village Muwana, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, for taking KCC limit from the complainant-bank by committing forgery. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused (supra) in a calculated manner, by creating forged documents of the revenue record, obtained loan of Rs.17,00,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Scheme. However, they had already obtained loan from different banks on the land in question, which was mortgaged to the complainant-bank.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, to seek the relief (supra), has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are that he was the Bank Manager of the Bank concerned at the relevant time and had disbursed the loan amount (supra). However, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, as he does not have any role in the alleged forgery, rather he had only discharged his duties as a prudent person. Though four more cases have been registered against the petitioner, however, in three cases he has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, whereas, in one case he has been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, since challan already stands presented and charges are yet to be framed, besides the trial is also likely to take a long time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of regular bail.

4. At this stage, Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate, has caused his appearance on behalf of the complainant-bank. Though he has vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, on the ground that he had colluded with the accused and thereby duped the bank by disbursing loan of Rs.17,00,000/- on the basis of forged documents, however, on instructions imparted to him by the complainant-bank, he has admitted the factum qua fifty percent of the principal amount being deposited by the one of the accused, namely, Surender.

5. Learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him by the Investigating Officer concerned, has submitted that, in the instant FIR, the challan has already been presented way back on 07.04.2023, however, charges are yet to be framed. He has further submitted that the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses.

6. “Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception”. This basic principle of criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, way back in 1978, in its landmark judgment titled “State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias Baliay”, 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.

7. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person. However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is “the presumption of innocence”, besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.

8. In “Nikesh Tarachand Shah V. Union of India”, (2018) 11 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recorded the following:-

“14. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out with great felicity as follows:-

“27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the righ