Paratha Sarthi Mitra And Others vs State Of H.P

Anoop Chitkara, J

For commission of offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the petitioners, who are now apprehending arrest, have came up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, seeking anticipatory bail.

A perusal of the petitions reveals that the petitioners straightaway filed the bail petitions before High Court, which is permissible given the decision of a three Judges Bench of HP High Court, in Mohan Lal v Prem Chand , AIR 1980 HP 36, (Para 9 & 15), wherein the Full bench holds that a person can directly apply for an anticipatory bail or regular bail to the High Court without first invoking the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court.

In the bail applications, the petitioners declare having no criminal history.

The status report reveals the following facts:

(a) That on the basis of source report that Sh. Vinod Mittal R/o Sector 20, Panchkula (HR), who is the proprietor of A.M. Industry Jharmajri, Baddi, in connivance with Sh. Vivek Dogra S/o Sh. Narender Dogra, R/o Lower Bazar Shimla, who is a dealer of property, often influences public servants in lieu of granting permission under Section 118 of HP Tenancy & Land Reforms Act, 1972, that on 21.03.2011, Sh. Vinod Mittal along with money to influence the officers of the Revenue Department and has proceeded towards Shimla in Vehicle No. HR-03L-0633 and that if he is intercepted, a huge amount of gratification may be recovered from him, the aforesaid case was registered under Section 8 of P.C. Act, 1988 against Sh. Vinod Mittal.

(b) That the raiding teams were constituted which proceeded towards Tara Devi to intercept the vehicle. The team observed that another vehicle No. HR06K-0045 (Innova) is escorting vehicle No. HR03L-0633 and as such both the vehicles were intercepted by the team near old bus stand, Shimla. But due to the traffic congestion, both the vehicles were brought to the complex of PS, SV&ACB, Shimla, where they were searched. Sh. Chander Prakash Kathuria & Sh. Vinod Mittal were found sitting in vehicle No. HR06K-0045 (Innova) along with a driver and during the search of the vehicle, two brief cases along with one bag were found and upon checking, an amount of Rs.5 Lacs, a few cheque books, revenue papers, sale deeds and GPA were found and the same were handed over to Sh. Chander Prakash Kathuria. However, nothing objectionable was found during the search of vehicle No. HRO3L-0633 Swift car.

(c) That during the course of investigation, transcriptions of recordings of the telephonic interceptions of conversations of suspected person namely Vinod Mittal and Vivek Dogra were made and analysed, which suggested that Vinod Mittal was obtaining money from various parties interested in purchasing land in HP for facilitating permission under section 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,1972 by exercising his influence over Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra who was looking after the work of Pr. Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of HP. Since voice recordings were the only evidence to substantiate the allegations, Vivek Dogra was asked to give his voice samples, but he refused to give voice samples. As such, sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused before the court of law could not be collected and final report U/S 173(2) Cr.P.C. as closure report (Not Charge sheeted for want of sufficient evidence) was prepared against the accused, Sh. Vinod Mittal (middleman) R/o Panchkula and Sh. Vivek Dogra @ Dimple (middleman) R/o Shimla and presented before the Ld. Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla on 01.12.2016.

(d) That the Ld. Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla vide its orders dated 21.05.2018 directed to conduct further investigation, "to find out the role of public servant as well as the private individuals in respect to the conversations made telephonically with each other and also with the public servant, the telephonic conversation as collected during investigation needs to be thoroughly investigated. There is virtually no investigation on the point how and under what circumstances, the individuals were talking about revenue clearance as required under section 118 of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and also for getting the work done from the concerned public servant. How and why the meetings with public servants were being fixed by them. The role of Rajan Goel also needs to be examined. After all investigating agency also admits that a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh was paid to some person at Chandigarh by Vivek Dogra on the asking of public servant concerned. The telephonic conversation as collected during investigation need to be further investigated".

(e) That during the course of further investigation, permission under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amended) Act, 2018 to initiate investigation against Shri Partha Sarthi Mitra, the then F.C Cum Pr. Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of HP was sought from Govt. of HP and the same has been conveyed by Pr. Secretary (Vigilance) Govt. of HP vide letter No. Home (vig.) A(5)-38/2016(Indi.) dated 27/11/2018 for conducting further investigation in the light of specific directions given by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 21.05.2018.

(f) That during the course of further investigation, the transcripts of the voice recordings of the telephonic conversations held between various persons including Vinod Mittal and Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra were scrutinized in great detail and the persons concerned were examined. Thereafter, some persons have been examined in order to reveal the facts that have arisen from the analysis of transcripts of the conversations held between the suspect persons.

(g) It is further submitted here that from the conversations dated 26.8.2010 to 28.8.2010, it is revealed that Sh. Vinod Mittal spoke to MK Jain, owner of Chelsea Resorts Pvt. Ltd. and asked for 10 "Peti" for clearance of file of M/S Chelsea Resorts Pvt. Ltd for permission under section 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, who immediately contacted his brother-in-law, Sh. Ashok Singal at Delhi to get the money collected from Sh. MK Jain. But for some reasons, the same could not be collected by him and thereafter, Vinod Mittal spoke to Ramesh Gupta, who has a factory at Parwanoo and Regional office in Delhi to arrange for collection of money from Delhi and provide it to him, so that, he can carry it to Shimla for Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra. The conversations also reveal that Ashok Singhal could not get the money collected from office of MK Jain at Gurgoan, upon which, Vinod Mittal asked his friend, Surinder Singh Yadav at Gurgoan to collect the money from MK Jain, and MK Jain sent his Accountant, Pardeep to the office of Surinder Singh Yadav at Gurgoan. After delivering the money, Pardeep Kumar informed Vinod Mittal and Vinod Mittal confirmed about the receipt of money from Sh. Surinder Singh Yadav. Further, the conversations held between Sh. Vinod Mittal & Sh. Ramesh Gupta, reveal that Vinod Mittal is confirming delivery of "10 peti" to Ramesh Gupta by Surinder Singh Yadav and that the "10 peti" in turn received (from Ramesh Gupta) by Vinod Mittal is short of Rs.5000/-. Thereafter, Vinod Mittal contacted Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra at Shimla to find out at what time, he should meet him and finally conversations reveal that they met near the Hotel D-Park, Shimla, where, the gratification amount is supposed to have been delivered.

(h) That during the course of investigation, files No. Rev: BF (10)310/2005 Part -I & file no. Rev: BF (10)310/2005 Part-II related to M/S Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. and file No. Rev: BF (10)-94/2011 related to M/S Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd. Regarding permission under section 118 of HP Tenancy & land Reforms Act, 1972 has been taken on record from Revenue-B Branch of HP Secretariat, Shimla. From the record of said files, it revealed that Sh. M. K. Jain was the owner of M/S Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. and he applied for the necessary permission u/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in the year, 2005, but the same was rejected by the then F.C. Cum Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of HP on account of 243 trees standing on the land in question in the year 2006. Again, the file was processed in the year, 2008 with fresh agreement for sale and purchase of land and affidavit along with U.O. letter dated 05.02.2008 of the then, Minister of HPPWD and Revenue HP, but the revenue Department sought approval/comments of TCP & Tourism Department as directed by the then F.C. cum Secretary (Revenue) to the Govt. of HP vide their letter dated 18.03.2008. From the record, it revealed that U.O. letters of the then Revenue Minister dated 16.12.2009 and 17.02.2010 were received in Revenue-B branch in HP Secretariat and the same were put up on the noting file on 22.02.2010 and further to Ms. Harinder Hira, the then ACS (Revenue) to the Govt. of HP, who made her comments that we may await the report from Commissioner, Tourism and also write to the Secretary (Tourism) and TCP/UD to assess the carrying capacity of Kasauli, Kandaghat and Solan.

(i) That Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra has joined as Secretary (Revenue) on 09.08.2010, but the recorded conversations between Sh. Vinod Mittal, Sh. MK Jain, owner of M/s Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra revealed their nexus prior to the joining of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra as Secretary (Rev.). U.O. letter dated 06.08.2010 sent by the then Revenue Minister to the F.C. (Revenue) Government of HP with the direction to examine and put up was diarized vide diary No. 51521412/Rev.B dated 12.08.2010. Also, an application dated 25.06.2010 of M/s Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. addressed to the Secretary, Revenue found in the record received on 05.7.2010 in the Revenue-B Branch and diarized vide diary No. 51487237/Rev.B dated 09.07.2010. But, the same was processed by the Dealing Assistant, Narender Kanwar on 13.09.2010 and put up to Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra, who recommended to grant permission on 18.09.2010 without waiting for the comments from TCP & Tourism Department. From the above circumstantial evidences, it may be concluded that the application dated 25.06.2010 of M/s Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. processed along with the U.O note of the Minister in-charge was kept pending on the instance of petitioner, Sh. Vinod Mital and processed only, when Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra got the gratification from MK Jain, Prop. of M/s Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. through Sh. Vinod Mittal.

(j) That from the record of file No. Rev: BF(10)-94/2011, with regard to grant of permission u/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act,1972 for purchase the land to set up a Housing Colony by M/S Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd., it is revealed that Sh. CP Kathuria was the owner of M/s Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd. and he applied the necessary permission w/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in the year 2010 and the same was received in the Revenue- B Branch of HP Secretariat on 07.03.2011 and further recommended by Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra, the then F.C. cum Pr. Secretary(R) to the Govt. of HP to grant permission on 10.03.2011 with the condition that no trees will be felled without the permission of competent authority. Accordingly. permission for purchase of land of M/s Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd. was granted and further conveyed to Deputy Commissioner, Solan as well as to the applicant Company i.e. M/s Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 16.03.2011. Sh. CP Kathuria, Prop. of M/s Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd. Visited Shimla on 21.03.2011 along with Sh. Vinod Mittal in his vehicle, but incidentally got intercepted by the Vigilance team at Shimla, carrying an amount of Rs. 5 Lakh along with him. So, it is suspected that after getting informed about the permission u/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in favour of his company i.e. M/s Optima Construction Pvt. Ltd., Sh. CP Kathuria had visited Shimla along with gratification amount, which was to be delivered to the Revenue Officers.

(k) That during the course of further investigation, the statement of Sh. Narender Kanwer, the then Section Officer Department of Revenue U/s 161 Cr.PC has been recorded on dated 19-11-2018, vide which, he disclosed that Sh. Vinod Mittal often used to ask for the progress of the permission of Chelsea Resort telephonically, where he also claimed that discussion has been made with Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra for the approval of the file. Accordingly, his statement u/s 164 Cr. PC has been recorded before the Ld. Court of JMIC 1st Class, Court No. 3 Shimla on 22-11-2018.

(l) That the applications for polygraph test and taking voice samples of petitioner, Sh. Vinod Mittal were moved before the Ld. Court of Special Judge (F), Shimla in the month of September, 2018. The permission to undergo Polygraph test and Voice sample in respect of Sh. Vinod Mittal was given by the Ld. Court of Special Judge (F), Shimla on dated 05-11-2018, but in the meantime, Sh Vinod Mittal filed a Cr.M.M.O No. 596/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of HP at Shimla against the order of Ld. Court of Special Judge (F) Shimla passed on 05-11-2018 and obtained stay. The Hon'ble High Court of HP passed orders on 5.09.2019 by vacating the stay on the orders of Ld. Special Judge Shimla with respect to obtaining voice sample of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra. The Hon'ble High Court of HP also dismissed the petition of Sh. Vinod Mittal on 23.06.2020 with the direction to give the voice sample and to undergo the polygraph test as determined by the Investigation Officer/Agency.

(m) That the applications for polygraph test and taking voice samples of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra were moved before the Ld. Court of Special Judge (F), Shimla in the month of September, 2018. But, the same was kept pending by the court due to Cr.M.M.O No. 596/2018 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of HP at Shimla against the order of Ld. Court of Special Judge (F) Shimla passed on 05-11-2018 in respect of Vinod Mittal. After the disposal of Petition by the Hon'ble High Court of HP vide orders dated 05.09.2019 in respect of voice sample, permission for taking voice sample in respect of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra was given by the Ld. Court of Special Judge (F), Shimla on 30.09.2019.

(n) That during the course of further investigation, the voice samples in respect of Sh.Vinod Mittal and Sh.Partha Sarthi Mitra has been taken in SFSL Junga. Also, admitted voice samples of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra has been taken from the Director, Public Relation Office, Majhitha House, Shimla-2 (HP) and the same were sent for further comparison with the questioned voice and specimen/admitted voice sample of Sh. Vinod Mittal and Sh.Partha Sarthi Mitra. Now, the voice samples in respect of Sh. Vinod Mittal and Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra have been compared and found matched as per SFSL report dated 31.01.2020.

(o) That during the course of further investigation, suspects/persons namely, Sh. Vivek Dogra @ Dimple, Sh. Ashok Singhal, Sh. M.K. Jain, Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Sh. Surinder Singh and Sh. Ramesh Gupta were asked to join in the investigation and provide their voice samples, but they refused to give the voice samples and therefore, applications in respect of the said suspects have been moved before the Ld. Court of Special Judge (F), Shimla and the same were allowed by the Ld. Court. The specimen voice samples in respect of the suspects, Sh. Vivek Dogra @ Dimple, Sh. Ashok Singhal, Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Sh. Surinder Singh and Sh.Ramesh Gupta have been taken in SFSL Junga on various dates and the specimen voice samples in respect of Sh. M. K. Jain were taken in CFSL CBI, New Delhi on 17.03.2020. Now, the voice samples in respect of all of the above namely, Sh. Vivek Dogra @ Dimple, Sh. Ashok Singhal, Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Sh. Surinder Singh, Sh. Ramesh Gupta and Sh.M.K. Jain have been compared and found matched as per SFSL report dated 18.08.2020.

(p) That during the course of further investigation, petitioner, Sh. Vinod Mittal has joined the investigation on 16.09.2020, 05.10.2020 and 27.10.2020. During the course of his examination, he has accepted his voice in the partial recorded conversations, but some of the suspicious conversations vide which gratification has been demanded by him on behalf of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra has been denied, despite the fact that the voice samples of the petitioner has been found matched with the recorded conversation as per SFSL report. Further, he has accepted the fact that the file number of M/s Chelsea Resort has been disclosed by Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra to him. However, he has also denied his meeting at Hotel D-Park with Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra on 28.08.2010. He has also denied about the demand of any bribe by Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra from him as revealed from the conversations made on 28.07.2010, 18.09.2010 and 04.11.2010. Further, Sh. Vinod Mittal is not disclosing the meaning of various code words used by him in the recorded conversations. He is also not disclosing about the source of gratification amount which he had received from MK Jain, Prop. of M/s Chelsea Resort Pvt. Ltd. through various other persons and finally delivered to Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra. Further, he has also not disclosed about the context of the conversations made on 28.08.2010, with Sh. Ramesh Gupta, for receiving less amount of Rs.5 thousand.

(q) That from the recorded conversations of 28.07.2010, 25.08.2010, 27.08.2010, 28.08.2010, 04.09.2010, 09.09.2010, 18.09.2010, 03.11.2010, 04.11.2010, 20.11.2010 and 21.11.2010 among various suspect/persons including, Vinod Mital, Partha Sarthi Mitra and Vivek Dogra, it is revealed that petitioner, Sh. Vinod Mittal was in continuous contact with Partha Sarthi Mitra and Sh. Vivek Dogra @Dimple (middleman), R/o Shimla and upon the demand of Partha Sarthi Mitra, he further collected the gratification amount from Sh. MK Jain, Prop. of M/S Chelsea Resorts Pvt. Ltd., whose request for permission u/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was pending in the Department of Revenue, who delivered the gratification amount to Partha Sarthi Mitra on 28.08.2010 and Partha Sarthi Mitra recommended the case on 18.09.2010. The permission was finally granted by the State Government on 25.09.2010. Investigation also revealed that Sh. Vinod Mittal made frequent visits to Shimla and Himachal Pradesh Secretariat to influence Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra and to clear the file of M/S Chelsea Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for permission u/s 118 of HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

(r) That the requisite permission with regard to Polygraph test of Sh. Partha Sarthi Mitra is pending before the Ld. Special Judge (Forest), Shimla and the same is listed for order on 01.12.2020. In respect of Vinod Mittal, the Hon'ble High Court of HP dismissed the petition of Sh. Vinod Mittal on 23.06.2020 to give the voice sample and to undergo the polygraph test as determined by the Investigation Officer/Agency.

(s) That the transcript of the conversations between the petitioner and his co-accused are submitted in a sealed cover with relevant portion highlighted for the perusal of the Hon'ble Court. The detailed status of the investigation of the case has already been submitted separately for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

The matters have been listed number of times and it is the respondent-State, which sought adjournment on the ground of further investigation, which was granted every time. It is for the first time, the respondent- State did not seek time and argued the matter after one year.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that during interim bail, the petitioners joined the investigation, and custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever. The incarceration before the proof of guilt would cause grave injustice to the petitioners and family.

On the contrary, Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General contends that if this Court is inclined to grant bail, then such a bond must be subject to very stringent conditions.

REASONING:

The status report reveals that the offence is punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Reading of Section 8 of the Act reveals that the maximum sentence, which can be imposed is seven years. The petitioners are first offenders. The FIR pertains to the year 2011 and ten years have passed. This Court had granted interim protection to the petitioners. The petitioners have joined the investigations and there is no allegation that they did not cooperate with the investigation. Without commenting on the merits of the case, there is no justification for custodial interrogation and denial of bail. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners make out a case for release on bail.

In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR attracts the application of the directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Given the above reasoning, the Court is granting bail to the petitioners, subject to strict 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.

In Manish Lal Shrivastava v State of Himachal Pradesh, CrMPM No. 1734 of 2020, after analysing judicial precedents, this Court observed that any Court granting bail with sureties should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or give a fixed deposit, with a further option to switch over to another.

Given above, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), and shall furnish two sureties of a similar amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigator. Before accepting the sureties, the Attesting Officer must satisfy that in case the accused fail to appear in Court, then such sureties are capable to produce the accused before the Court, keeping in mind the Jurisprudence behind the sureties, which is to secure the presence of the accused.

In the alternative, the petitioners may furnish aforesaid personal bond and fixed deposit(s) for Rs. Twenty-five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), made in favour of "Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Shimla, H.P.,"

a) The arresting Officer shall give a time of ten working days to enable the accused to prepare a fixed deposit.

b) Such Fixed deposits may be made from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the stable private banks, e.g., HDFC Bank, ICICI Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, etc., with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and liberty of the interest reverting to the linked account.

c) Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the account of the petitioners and need not be a single fixed deposit.

d) If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned Court.

e) If made online, then its printout, attested by any Advocate, and if possible, countersigned by the accused, shall be filed, and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled.

f) The petitioners or their Advocates shall inform at the earliest to the concerned branch of the bank, that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier, about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number as well as FIR number.

g) After that, the petitioners shall hand over such proof along with endorsement to the concerned Court.

h) It shall be total discretion of the petitioners to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the petitioners to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa.

i) Subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, if any, the entire amount of fixed deposit along with interest credited, if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor(s). Such Court shall have a lien over the deposits up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be.

The furnishing of the personal bonds shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order:

a) The petitioners to execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s). Once the trial begins, the petitioners shall not, in any manner, try to delay the proceedings, and undertakes to appear before the concerned Court and to attend the trial on each date, unless exempted. In case of an appeal, on this very bond, the petitioners also promises to appear before the higher Court in terms of Section 437-A CrPC.

b) The attesting officer shall, on the reverse page of personal bonds, mention the permanent address of the petitioners along with the phone number(s), WhatsApp number (if any), e-mail (if any), and details of personal bank account(s) (if available), and in case of any change, the petitioners shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change of residential address and change of phone numbers, WhatsApp number, e-mail accounts, to the Police Station of this FIR to the concerned Court.

c) The petitioners shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.

d) The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as may be required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioners shall not be called before 8 AM and shall be let off before 5 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

e) In addition to standard modes of processing service of summons, the concerned Court may serve or inform the accused about the issuance of summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants the accused through E-Mail (if any), and any instant messaging service such as WhatsApp, etc. (if any). [Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, I.A. No. 48461/2020- July 10, 2020]:

i. At the first instance, the Court shall issue the summons.

ii. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the Court on the specified date, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue bailable warrants.

iii. Finally, if the petitioners still fail to put in an appearance, in that eventuality, the concerned Court may issue Non-Bailable Warrants to procure the petitioners' presence and may send the petitioners to the Judicial custody for a period for which the concerned Court may deem fit and proper to achieve the purpose.

During the trial's pendency, if the petitioners repeat or commit any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violate any condition as stipulated in this order, the State may move an appropriate application before this Court, seeking cancellation of this bail. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the CrPC.

In case of non-appearance, then irrespective of the contents of the bail bonds, the petitioners undertake to pay all the expenditure (only the principal amount without interest) that the Government(s) might incur to produce them before such Court, provided such amount exceeds the amount recoverable after forfeiture of the bail bonds, and also subject to the provisions of Sections 446 & 446-A of CrPC. The petitioners' failure to reimburse shall entitle the trial Court to order the transfer of money from the petitioners' bank account(s). However, this recovery is subject to the condition that the expenditure incurred must be spent to trace the petitioners alone, and it relates to the exercise undertaken solely to arrest the petitioners in that FIR, and that voyage was not for any other purpose/function what so ever.

Any Advocate for the petitioners and the Officer in whose presence the petitioners put signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order, in vernacular and if not feasible, in Hindi.

In case the petitioners find the bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioners may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition.

This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation per law.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

The petition stands allowed in the terms mentioned above.