JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J.

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

2. In paragraph 23 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. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.

4. The State opposes bail.

REASONING:

5. The complainant, who was running a clinic, informed the police that Dr. Raj Kumar, who had an oral share in the said clinic with the complainant, had cheated him in conspiracy with other co-accused Dr. Akshay Jain and Dr. Pankaj. As per the complainant, the aforesaid two doctors i.e. Dr. Akshay Jain and Dr. Shiv Kumar, who claimed to be doctors at Government Hospital, came to him and told him that the hospital of the complainant was not as per the criteria of the Government norms. On this, the complainant told them that qualified doctors sit in the hospital and there is no lapse in it. On the same day, co-accused Raj Kumar, who was his oral partner, told him that he was no more a partner in the said hospital and asked the complainant to take care of the hospital at his own level. Subsequently, Raj Kumar told the complainant that the doctors of Government hospital are demanding Rs. 2 lac for settlement. Subsequently, Raj Kumar made a phone call to the complainant and told that he had given Rs. 50,000/- to Dr. Pankaj Khandelwal and the balance amount is to be given by him. The complainant stated to the police that he had arranged Rs. 38,000/- but he did not want to give bribe. After that, the police laid a trap and present petitioner was caught red handed.

6. As per paragraph 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2023. 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. Thus, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail.

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 expresse