The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of bail should be a rule rather than an exception, and personal liberty should only be curtailed when imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

The present application has been preferred on a case under Sections 420/490/471/120B, IPC, being registered against the Applicant resulting in a non-bailable warrant of arrest being issued for his apprehension. Without delving much into the details of the case, it will be sufficient to note that during the course of the investigation by the Namchi Police, on a complaint lodged by one Sunil Jaiswal for having been cheated by one Ayush Kapoor and another Sanjiv Nagar of a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores, it was found that the Applicant/Petitioner was also involved in the commission of the offence giving rise to commencement of the process against the Applicant/Petitioner.

2. It appears that the Applicant/Petitioner had sought for bail in anticipation of arrest from the Sessions Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi, which had been rejected on the grounds as stated in the Order dated 20-10-2012 passed by it. It is for this reason the Applicant/Petitioner is before this Court.

3. Pressing the application, Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned Advocate submitted that the applicant is a business man directly involved in the day to day affairs of his business in the name and style of M/s. Aeroma Chemicals Private Ltd. M/s. Maxtone Petrochemicals and M/s. Pinacle Realtors. It is further submitted that although the Applicant/Petitioner had been a partner in M/s. Maiden Travels, the Company involved in the commission of the offence, he had severed all connections with it right from 15-7-2009 and a declaration duly notarised as required under the law had been issued by him, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure P2 to the application. On and from that date he had nothing to do with M/s. Maiden Travels which would be further confirmed by the statement of accounts of the Deutsche Bank pertaining to the company filed as Annexure P3 for the period 1-1-2010 to 13-10-2012. As per him, the statement of accounts would clearly indicate that it is rather the two persons named in the FIR who were frequently transacting in that account. These are the primary submissions made in support of the application on the facts. It is submitted that in law the prosecution has not been able to make out sufficient grounds for placing the Applicant/Petitioner in custody of the Police and, therefore, entitled to bail in anticipation under Section 438, Cr. P.C. 1973.

4. Mr. J. B. Pradhan, learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the necessity of taking the Applicant/Petitioner into custody by the Investigating Officer has been felt imperative in view of the evidence that have come of his threatening the complainant as would appear from the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and also from the entry in the case diary No. 171 dated 17-10-2012. Apart from this, Mr. Pradhan submits that from the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of Ayush Kapoor, one of the accused persons mentioned in the FIR, recorded by the Investigating Officer, it is revealed that the Applicant/Petitioner continues to be a partner in the company M/s. Maiden Travels. Mr. Pradhan further submits that the possibility of the Applicant/Petitioner fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out since thus far he has been evading arrest and is quite apparent from the fact that he has preferred to file the present application.

5. While fairly conceding to the position in law that reasons have to be sufficiently set out as to why an accused person is required to be taken into custody, it was submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that for an effective investigation of the case custodial interrogation of the Applicant/Petitioner would be preferred because an accused armed with an order of bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. would not be inclined to co-operate. In support of this, the learned Public Prosecutor has referred to the decision of State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, 1997 (7) SCC 187 : (AIR 1997 SC 3806) more particularly paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 which he need not go into in