Bail can be granted when pre-trial custody is unjustifiable, provided stringent conditions are imposed to prevent influencing witnesses and ensure fair 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. 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.

3. The State opposes bail.

4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on merits. As per the grounds mentioned in page No. 5 of the bail petition that the petitioner is a national player of badminton and he was subordinate officer to the ARCS Shri Rishi Kumar. A large number of points has also been mentioned in the bail petition. He seeks bail on the grounds that he has a single daughter, aged 12 years, who is going through mental agony because of petitioner's custody and his wife is a patient of slip disk and due to increase burden including taking care of petitioner's parents, her health condition regarding slip disk is deteriorating.

5. I am inclined to grant bail on the grounds mentioned in the petition in this regard. In addition to pre-trial custody is mentioned hereinafter.

6. As per paragraph 1 (ix) of the bail petition, the petitioner is in custody since 24-06-2022. 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 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 jeopardise 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, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, ha