The court held that pretrial detention is not justified if the investigation is complete and established the need for stringent conditions to balance the accused's liberty with the need for a fair trial.

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 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.

Reasoning:

5. Allegations against the petitioner are that he had demanded bribe from the complainant for getting jamabandi and also received part payment and insisted to pay more bribe. It is further alleged that the petitioner was caught red handed while taking bribe of Rs.10,000/-, in a trap laid by the police.

6. As per paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2023. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pretrial 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 pretrial 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 [Para92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para92, 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