JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. In paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"3. That the matter relates with allotment of high value industrial plots of PSIEC (Punjab Small Industry & Export Corporation) on lower rates than the actual market value (prevailing fixed rates for the given time) by officials/employees of PSIEC in connivance with the property dealers, in a wrongful manner for illegal gratification, in the name of their relatives/friends/acquaintances on fictitious addresses by way of failing the persons having requisite knowledge and eligible for allotment of said plots, in interview and delaying possession of allotted plots for years to come on the pretext of various impediments in delivering vacant possession such as overhanging electrical wires, un-removed left over construction material and thereafter allotting the said plots to new persons on old rates by way of changing the date of allotment of said plots based on ante-dated partnership deed executed between the old fictitious allottees and the new comers for the determined share amongst them and thereafter transferring the 100% ownership in the name of such new shareholders in the partnership deed and in this manner causing wrongful financial loss to the tune of crores of rupees to the State Exchequer."

4. The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on parity and has referred to Para A and D of the bail petition, which reads as follows:

"A. That the present Petitioner is a retired employee of the PSIEC; and, is a Senior Citizen aged about 70 years who has deep roots in the society. Thus, it is humbly submitted that the present Petitioner is not likely to evade the process of law, if granted the concession of Regular Bail by this Hon'ble Court.

.....

D. That the present Petitioner was an ir nocuous and low-ranking employee of the PSIEC; and, a bare perusal of the said FIR No. 4 would reveal that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present Petitioner. In fact, the only case set-up against the present Petitioner is of 'assisting' the 2 main senior co-accused-Officials of the PSIEC. It is relevant to note that both of the said 2 main co-accused-Officials have been released on Regular Bail by this Hon'ble Court after only 13 days of incarceration."

5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"Role of petitioner:-

11. That the petitioner has remained posted as Estate Officer with PSIEC during his service period till year 2011-12 and as consultant after his retirement from 2012 to 2019. He was responsible for issuance of allotment letters of plots, forwarding files for change of date of allotment to co-accused Surinder Pal Singh and issue process for recovery of pending dues against the plot allottees. In the present matter, he in connivance with other co-accused persons has issued allotment letters of plots to fictitious allottees on fake addresses and has been instrumental in waiving of penal interest applicable on pending dues by way of recommending change of plot allotment date and delaying the recovery process for lingering on the cancellation action against the plot allottees who has fail