The court held that bail may be granted under stringent conditions to mitigate risks of influencing witnesses or fleeing justice, balancing the rights of the accused with the integrity of the trial.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. -

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under section 439 CrPC, 1973 seeking bail.

2. In paragraph 17 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 bail.

5. The prosecution case is being extracted from status report dated 28.11.2023 filed by concerned DySP which reads as under:-

"3. That the Brief facts of this case are that the present FIR no.15 dated 10.10.2023 under section 7-A Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as Amended by Amendment Act 2018 has been registered on the basis of the statement made by complainant Surinder Kumar Arora @ Happy, wherein it has been stated that the complainant is doing the business of sale and purchase of the properties. He and Rupinder Singh Grewal S/o Ranbir Singh R/o House No.52, Qile Wala, Barnahara, Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana are having joint agricultural land at Village Barnahara, Hambran Road, Ludhiana and they were planning to create a park on that land, as such, a path leading to the house was constructed there. The petitioner made WhatsApp call from his mobile phone no. 99142-60772 to the mobile phone no. 98145-41595 of the complainant and he had told the complainant that land in question is situated within the jurisdiction of GLADA. The petitioner also told the complainant that SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh of GLADA have told him that the path constructed by the complainant will be demolished as he cannot construct such path on agricultural land. The petitioner further told the complainant that he is a Press Reporter and he will publish the news in the newspaper that the complainant has constructed path on the land in question. The petitioner had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant for not taking any action by the GLADA. The petitioner told the complainant that out of this amount, Rs.1,00,000/- each will be paid to SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh whereas Rs.1,00,000/- be retained by him. In case, amount is not paid by the complainant, then he will get the path and house demolished from SDO Davleen Singh and JE Amarjit Singh.

4. That on 02.10.2022, Amarjit Singh JE GLADA made telephonic call to the complainant and asked him to stop the path whereas SDO Davleen Singh made a telephonic call to the complainant on 10.10.2023 in this regard. Since the complainant did not want to give bribe to the petitioner, so on 10.10.2023 he came to the office of Economic Offences Wing, Punjab Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana and got recorded his statement and also produced audio recording along with currency notes of Rs.1,00,000/- before the vigilance officials. Copy of transcript is attached herewith as Annexure R-1. It is submitted that thereafter trap was laid and the petitioner was apprehended while taking bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant in the presence of official witnesses."

6. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. Considering the bribe amount vis-a-vis petitioner's custody since 10.10.2023, it