JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant application for bail of accused, Sri Santosh Nandi, a Panchayat Secretary, who is in judicial custody since 13.09.2007 in connection with West Agartala Police Station Case No. 191/2007 under Section 409, is filed by Smti Bulbul Choudhury (Nandi), wife of the said accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that, while the accused, Santosh Nandi was working as Panchayat Secretary in the extended areas of the Agartala Municipal Council, on the strength of Memo No. F.1 (2-13)-ESTT/PR/2004/7146-78 dated 27.8.2004 issued by the Director of Panchayat, Government of Tripura, defalcated pension money meant for the old aged peoples of the area as per the National Old Age Pension Scheme, extended to the State of Tripura, showing disbursement in favour of the beneficiaries who have already expired, i.e. beneficiaries already died. 3. Stating all the relevant facts regarding the alleged disbursement in the name of the 10 expired beneficiaries, the Block Development Officer (BDO), Dukli RD Block, West Tripura, lodged information with the Officer-in-charge, West Agartala Police Station, which was accordingly registered being West Agartala P.S. Case No. 191/2007 under Section 409 IPC. On the strength of the aforesaid FIR the Investigating Agency arrested the aforesaid accused person on 13.09.2007 and produced before the learned Elaka Magistrate. After production of the said accused person, the accused approached the said court of learned Elaka Magistrate for granting him bail by way of preferring an application under Section 437 which was, accordingly, rejected considering the facts and circumstances as well as the materials which was available in the Case Diary at the relevant time. An application under Section 439was also preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Court No. 2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide its order dated 3.10.2007, after hearing the parties and perusal of the original case record and case diary, rejected the prayer for bail as the accused person failed to make out any prima facie case for enlarging him on bail except the ground that test examination of the son of the accused in knocking at the door and detention of the accused is bound to have some impact on the study of his son. 4. Heard Mr. 4. Heard Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner who prefers the instant bail application for granting bail to her husband, who is accused in the instant case. Also heard Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., who produced the case diary. 5. Mr. Biswas, learned Advocate appearing for the accused petitioner, before making any submission on merit, submits that the son of the accused namely, Diptanu Nandi is, at present reading in Class XII in the 'Umakanta Academy' whose text examination will commence on and from 1st week of November, 2007 and if the accused is not released on bail it would not be possible on his part, as a parent and also to look after the studies of his son for preparation of the said text examination, on the result of which will be decided by the authority whether he will be allowed to appear in the examination or not. He further submits that the instant case is relating to alleged defalcation of money by way of submitting false bills in the name of expired beneficiaries under the 'National Old Age Pension Scheme' and the said allegations are based fully on documentary evidence therefore, there is no scope to tamper evidence and he being a Government employee permanently settled at Agartala Town, there is also no possibility of his absconding, hence, he is entitled to be released on bail, as the detention of an accused at the pre trial test is not called for the purpose of punishment, rather detention is necessary only for the purpose of investigation. In support of his aforesaid contention he placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of (1) M. Sreenivasulu Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu in case No. 1145 of 2000 reported in AIR 2001 SCW 2381 and (2) Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 CriLJ 160. In M. Sreenivasulu Reddy (supra) the Apex Court held that: ...The court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, must bear in mind and be satisfied that the accused will not abscond or otherwise misuse liberty and this can be ascertained from several factors like conduct of the accused in the past, his assets in the country and so on. While granting such anticipatory bail though the Court may impose such conditions as it thinks fit, but the object of putting conditions should be to avoid the possibility of the person hampering investigation. The discretion of the Court while putting conditions should be an exercise of judicial discretion. In an offence under Sections 409 and 420 Indian Penal Code the Court is certainly not going to recover the alleged amount as a condition of grant of bail. This being the position, since the High Court had directed the payment of aforesaid money on the basis of the undertaking given by the accused, we should not modify that part of the order and, therefore, the accused would be required to pay the balance sum of Rs. 15 crores within a period of four weeks from today. In the case of Bhagirathsinh Judeja (supra) the Apex Court in para 5 of the judgment held as under: ...If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. Referring the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, Mr. Biswas, learned Counsel, finally submits that though the aforesaid decisions are relating to pre arrest bail but the principles laid down by the Apex Court is relating to enlargement on bail of an accused person both under Sections 438 and 439Cr.P.C. 6. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned Addl. P.P., while producing the case diary of the accused person seriously objected the prayer for bail of the accused on the ground that the accused being a Government employee, not only defalcated money meant for the old aged citizens of the country for whom the National Scheme is framed, rather cheated the Government also. He further submits that the prayer for bail on the ground of test examination of the son of the accused person is not a legal ground, rather it is a humanitarian ground which the court should not exercise its discretion granting release of the accused person on bail. As confronted by this court Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. He further submits that the prayer for bail on the ground of test examination of the son of the accused person is not a legal ground, rather it is a humanitarian ground which the court should not exercise its discretion granting release of the accused person on bail. As confronted by this court Mr. Ghosh, learned Addl. PP finally submits that as the accused person has agreed to deposit double of the amount as allegedly defalcated, then the Court may consider his prayer for granting bail. 7. This Court has anxiously considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties, also perused the case diary as produced by the prosecution and also the law reports cited by learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears from the submission of witnesses available in the case diary that the accused petitioner allegedly disbursed an amount of Rs. 15,000/- approximately, in the names of ten expired beneficiaries under the aforesaid National Old Age Pension Scheme and also the Investigating agency seized the related documents and investigation is going to be completed very soon. 8. There is no doubt that the court should not go for detail examination and the examination of the evidences and elaborate documentation on the merit of the case but, the court should be satisfied as to whether there is prima facie case while passing the order on bail applications and the court is also required to exercise its jurisdiction judiciously, not for withholding the bail application for the purpose of imposing punishment when the accused has root in the society and there is no possibility of absconding and tampering witnesses. 9. In the instant case, being the accused a Government employee having permanent residence and own house and properties at Agartala Town, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no possibility of absconding and as the materials documents relating to disbursement of money in favour of ten expired beneficiaries has already seized, there is no scope for tampering witnesses, more so, while the text examination of son of the accused is going to be held in the 1st week of November, 2007 and thinks it fit to grant bail to the accused person namely, Santosh Nandi, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on further condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on further condition that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash to the Block Development Officer, Dukli RD Block, West Tripura within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of his release, as agreed by learned Counsel of the petitioner an the BDO, shall deposit the same in the head of the National Old Age Pension Scheme from which head the money was earlier disbursed. After depositing the same the accused shall submit proof of deposition of money to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura. If the accused fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated period of 7 days, the bail granted shall automatically stand cancelled. The accused shall also report to the I.O. of the once in every fortnight for three months. 10. It is made clear that if the accused person is ultimately acquitted from the charge levelled against him then the money which will be deposited to the BDO should be refunded to him. 11. With the aforesaid order the bail application is allowed. Application allowed