Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The facts giving rise to these bail applications are that a criminal case was initiated on a report lodged by Rajesh Choudhary, Sub Inspector of Police on 23.10.2006 at Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (East) which reads as under:- ^^---vkt fnukad 23-10-06 dks eqrkfcd lwpuk eq[kfcj }kjk Jheku vfr- iqfyl v/kh{kd Jh vj'kn vyh ¼,lvksth½ dh nkjkflag o mlds lg;ksfx;ksa dh xSax t;iqj esa vkbZ gqbZ gS ;g xSax dksbZ okjnkr Hkh dj ldrh gS o ;g xSax lqcg gksus ls igys igys vtesj ds fy, jokuk gks tk;sxh xSax vk/kqfud gfFk;kjksa ls lqlfTtr gSaA bl ij jkts'k pkS/kjh ,lvkbZ e; Jh fulkj [kku ,lvkbZ] ujs'k 'kekZ ,lvkbZ] Jh tqfYQdkj ,lvkbZ] Jh lR;ukjk;.k xksnkjk ,lvkbZ] lqHkk"k xksnkjk ,lvkbZ] Jh vjfoUn ,plh- ua- 2273] Jh lqjsUnz ,plh 2264] Jh cnzh izlkn ,plh ua- 418] Jh txjke dkfu- ua- 171] Jh ljnkjflag pkyd ua- 652 e; okgu egsUnz eSDl Øekad vkjts- 14-;w ,-4013 e; gfFk;kj o dkjrwr ds vtesj jksM ,oa laHkkfor LFkku ij ryk'k djrk gqvk le; djhc 4-20 ,,e ij deyk usg: uxj ds ikl fLFkr QykbZ vksoj mrjrs gh funsZ'kkuqlkj igqapsa vkSj vtesj dh rjQ tkus okys okguksa dks pSd djuk 'kq: fd;kA le; djhc 5-20 ,,e ij cl ua- vkjts 27 ih, 0295 dks :dok;k rFkk eu ,lvkbZ e; fulkj [kku ,lvkbZ o tqfYQdkj ,lvkbZ us vUnj tkdj cSBs gq, ;kf=;ksa dks pSd fd;k rks lhV ua- 10 o 11 ij okafNr gqfy;k tSls nks cnek'k cSBs feys mudk uke irk iwNk rks nksuksa ldidk x, vkSj :d 2 dj cksyus ls lansg gksus ij rLnhd ds fy, cl ls uhps mrkj jgs Fks rks bu nksuksa us 'kjhj ij 'kky 'kjhj ij yisVs gq, Fkk tSls gh uhps mrjus yxs rks ckgj uhps vyx vyx txgksa ij iqfyl ikVhZ dks ns[kdj Hkkxus dh uh;r ls vpkud vius 'kky ls gkFk fudydj iqfyl ikVhZ ij Qk;j dj fn;kA iqfyl us viuk cpko fd;k rks blh le; nksuksa ikl ds [ksrksa dh rjQ HkkxsA iqfyl ikVhZ }kjk iSny o okgu esa cSBdj mudk ihNk fd;k rks iqfyl ikVhZ dks utnhd vkrs ns[kdj viuh fxjQrkjh ls cpus ,oa nwjh cuk;s j[kus ds fy, mu ij iqu% Qk;j fd;k mu nksuksa dk ihNk djrs djrs jktsUnz uxj fLFkr ,pih xSl xksnke ds lkeus okys lqulku jkLrs ftlds nksuksa rjQ Åapk Åapk MaMk o dqaps [kMs Fks muesa fNi x;sA iqfyl ikVhZ dh egsUnz eSDl thi T;ksagh utnhd igqaph rks ml ij nksuksa cnek'kksa us dqpksa ds vUnj ls Qk;j fd;k tks okgu ds vxys fgLls esa yxs ¼MªkbZoj us okgu dks jksddj FkksM+k ihNs dj okgu dh vkM+ ls iqfyl ikVhZ ds eu ,lvkbZ o Jh fulkj [kku ,lvkbZ] ujs'k 'kekZ ,lvkbZ] Jh tqfYQdkj ,lvkbZ] Jh ,lvkbZ] Jh lR;ukjk;.k ,lvkbZ] Jh vjfoUn ,plh ua- 2273] Jh lqjsUnz ,plh ua- 2264] Jh cnzh izlkn 418] Jh txjke ,Qlh 171 us Økl Qk;j can gksus ij rFkk djkgus dh vkokt vkus ij utnhd tkdj ns[kk rks ,d cnek'k ftlds 'kjhj ij xksfy;ksa dh pksVsa yxh gqbZ feyh rFkk vklikl vkSj ns[kk rks nwljk cnek'k ftldk gqfy;k mez djhcu 25@30 o"kZ iryk 'kjhj yEckbZ djhcu 5] 6 1@4 QhV o iSaV 'kVZ igus gq, vU/ksjs dk ykHk ysdj o dqpksa dh vkM+ ysrs gq, Hkkx x;kA ?kk;y dk uke irk iwNk rks og crkus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gS ?kVuk dh lwpuk 'kgj iqfyl daVªksy :e ij nh xbZ rFkk Hkkx x, ,d vU; vijk/kh dh ryk'k ds fy, ukdkcanh djokus ds fy, gqfy;k crk;k rFkk ,lvksth ds mPp vQljku dks lwfpr fd;k x;k LFkkuh; iqfyl ds Jh v'kksd fo'uksbZ ,lvkbZ dh Vhe e; okgu vkus ds fy, ckn cnek'k ds diM+ksa dh ryk'kh yh xbZ ftlesa vU; lkeku ds vykok Mk;fj;ka o dkMZ feys gSa ftlds vuqlkj cnek'k dk uke irk nkjk flag iq= Jh tqxyky] fuoklh eqaMh yky] rglhy jktx<] ftyk pq: vafdr gSA ?kVuk LFky ij cnek'k ds ikl ls 315 cksj dk ,d dV~Vk ,oa dkjrwl rFkk ,d made in Italy dk 7-65 dsyhcj dk fiLVy e; dkjrwl iM+k gSA cnek'k }kjk mudk ihNk djrs gq, iqfyl ikVhZ dks tkurs gq, Hkh tku ls ejus dh uh;r ls ge ij Qk;j fd;kA dkuwuh dk;Zokgh dh tkos ,lMh jkts'k pkS/kjh ih,l fo'ks"k ,oa vkfFkZd vijk/k lhvkbZMh ¼lhch½ jktLFkku] t;iqj fnukad 23-10-06 ?kVukLFky jktsUnz uxj dk;Zokgh iqfyl izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr fyf[kr fjiksVZ c[kr fgUnh izkFkhZ Jh jktsUnz pkS/kjh iq= Lo- Jh fotsUnz flag] tkfr-mez 32 lky] fuoklh ,Q 13] rqylhnkl ekxZ] czg~eiqjh t;iqj gky mi fujh{kd ,lvksth Fkkuk t;iqj 'kgj jktLFkku us ceqdke ?kVukLFky ij is'k dh etewu fjiksVZ ls ekeyk tqeZ /kkjk 307] 332] 353 vkbZihlh] 3@25 vkElZ ,DV] 3 ih-Mh-ih-ih- ,DV dk ?kfVr gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA ewy ,QvkbZvkj okLrs dk;eh tqeZ Fkkus ij dkfu- lksju flag 4161 ds lkFk fHktokbZ tkrh gS eqdnek uEcj ls voxr djk;sA eu ,lvkbZ v'kksd fo'uksbZ e'k:Q rrh'k gqvk ,lMh jkts'k pkS/kjh] ,lMh & v'kksd ih,l ekuljksoj t;iqj 'kgj ¼E½ fnukad 23-10-06 le; 8-00 ,,e] dSai jktsUnz izlkn uxj] t;iqjA** The said report was registered as FIR No.396/2006 for the offences under Section 307, 332, 353 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 3. The applicant Surendra Singh was posted as Head Constable in Rajasthan Police. On 23.10.2006, as per the direction of the higher authorities, he was associated with a team headed by Rajesh Choudhary for the purpose of arresting harden criminals. 4. The applicant Sardar Singh is a driver with Special Operation Group and was driving Setmax vehicle No. RJ-14-UA-4013. The logbook of the said vehicle had been seized by the investigating agency and filed alongwith the challan. The petitioner Sardar Singh is suspected to have either followed the bus which was stopped near Kamla Nehru Nagar from which two persons ran away after having seen the SOG team and had also opened fire on them or that the vehicle was used for Nakabandi. The deceased Dara Singh was taken to the place of incident by some other vehicle. The petitioner Sardar Singh had not used any arm nor any record of his telephone calls has been filed in the charge sheet. 5. After lodging of the aforesaid report on 23.10.2006, the investigation commenced, the site plan was prepared; the vehicle was examined and the sample of blood stained soil was taken. Articles belonging to the deceased Dara Singh, such as, shawl and a purse were also seized. Further, bus ticket No.3309683 dated 23.10.2006 giving time as 05.10 am. and seat No.10-11 of bus No.RJ-27-PA-0295 was also seized from the spot. 6. The deceased Dara Singh was a resident of district Churu against whom 29 cases, including that of murder, dacoity, etc., were pending at various police stations in Rajasthan. In March, 2006, the Superintendent of Police, District Churu had written a letter to the Police Headquarters for declaring deceased Dara Singh as most-wanted criminal. Thereafter, in the month of April and May, 2006, the Superintendent of Police, Churu had sent more information with regard to the activities of the deceased Dara Singh and his photograph were sent for declaring him and one another Kalyan Singh as most-wanted criminals. The deceased Dara Singh was absconding in number of criminal cases and warrant of arrest had been issued against him by different courts which the police was trying to get executed. Therefore, the local police had made a number of visits at his house between 05.03.2006 and 17.10.2006 but they could not catch hold of him. The deceased Dara Singh was absconding in number of criminal cases and warrant of arrest had been issued against him by different courts which the police was trying to get executed. Therefore, the local police had made a number of visits at his house between 05.03.2006 and 17.10.2006 but they could not catch hold of him. Every time, the police was informed that Dara Singh was absconding because of enmity with Vijay Singh and that he does not come to his village. 7. Subsequently the Special Operation Group, while trying to arrest various harden criminals, had been in search of the deceased Dara Singh and his telephone number was put under observation since October, 2006. An award of Rs.25,000/- was declared on 18.10.2006 for giving correct information about Dara Singh. A team of officials was sent on 21.10.2006 to collect information with regard to the whereabouts of the deceased Dara Singh. Another team of Special Operation Group was deputed on 22.10.2006. The incident is said to have taken place on 23.10.2006 in the early hours of morning when SOG team had stopped a bus for checking and found two suspects therein, who were asked to come down. They ran away after opening fire on the police to which the police party had also retaliated and opened fire on him which resulted in death of Dara Singh, but another person had ran away. 8. As per the facts given after investigation, the members of the SOG team had taken the deceased by another route and brought him to Jaipur in a Bolero jeep. Thereafter, he was taken to a secret place where he was kept in confinement. On the date of incident i.e. 23.10.2006, the deceased Dara Singh was taken from the place of captivity to the place of incident and he was shot dead by members of SOG team, namely Badri, Julfikar and Arvind Bhardwaj. It is said that other members of SOG team and its officials were also involved in the conspiracy. However, it is stated by the investigating agency that there is no direct evidence in the case and their version is based on cellphone I.D. of different mobile numbers. 9. After the incident on 23.10.2006, voices were raised from many corners, including the political parties. However, it is stated by the investigating agency that there is no direct evidence in the case and their version is based on cellphone I.D. of different mobile numbers. 9. After the incident on 23.10.2006, voices were raised from many corners, including the political parties. Smt. Sushila wife of the deceased Dara Singh had also filed a criminal complaint on 04.11.2006 against Shri A.K. Jain, the then A.D.G. (Crime), A. Ponnuchami, the then Superintendent of Police (SOG), Shri Rajesh Choudhary, S.I. and one Sukhia @ Sukhveer Singh for the offence under Section 467, 468, 364, 302, 120-B & 201 IPC. It was alleged in the said complaint that the deceased Dara Singh was having rivalry with Sukhya @ Sukhveer Singh and because he was having friendship with A. Ponnuchami that the SOG persons had threatened her. After calling the record, the learned Judicial Magistrate found that the matter is already under investigation in FIR No.396/2006. However, the learned Magistrate had sent the complaint on 02.04.2007 for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Mansarovar and the same was investigated as part of FIR No.396/2006. The learned Judicial Magistrate had monitored the case and ultimately police submitted a final report. 10. After the State Elections of the year 2009, the Chief Minister had made a request to Union State Minister, Ministry of Personnel, Government of India for transfer of the case No.396/2006, P.S. Mansarovar, Jaipur to CBI for investigation (Annexure-13 in Bail Application No.11487/2011, Sardar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan). In the said letter, it has been mentioned that earlier the State Government had made a request to the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Training, Government of India, New Delhi for transferring the case 396/2006, P.S. Mansarovar for investigation by CBI. But the CBI did not find the said transfer feasible on the ground that the matter has no interstate or international ramification. Earlier to it in the year 2007, an administrative enquiry, on the order of the then Government, was got conducted by Shri R.S. Agarwal, Member of Board of Revenue, Ajmer. The said enquiry remained pending till 30.11.2009. However, neither Smt. Sushila wife of the deceased Dara Singh nor his brother Sheeshram appeared before the said enquiry on the ground that they have already taken recourse of judicial process. The said enquiry remained pending till 30.11.2009. However, neither Smt. Sushila wife of the deceased Dara Singh nor his brother Sheeshram appeared before the said enquiry on the ground that they have already taken recourse of judicial process. Later on after the Election of 2008 and the change at the helm of the State, an administrative enquiry was assigned to Shri Rohit Kumar Singh, I.A.S. on 22.12.2009. Before this second enquiry, many persons had appeared and the same was concluded by submitting a report on 08.04.2010. 11. Subsequently, the investigation in the case arising out of the aforesaid report lodged on 23.10.2006 was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. An order in this respect was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 09.04.2010 in Special Leave Petition filed by Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Dara Singh. The Central Bureau of Investigation had then registered a report (RC2 (S)2010-SCE.V/SC.II) on 23.04.2010, at Police Station SPE/CBI/SUC.V/SC.II, New Delhi for the offences under Section 307, 332, 353 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act. 12. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2011. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency submitted the charge-sheet on 03.06.2011 for the offences under Section 302, 364, 346, 201 and 120-B IPC. The said charge-sheet is running in 7564 pages which contains statements of 254 witnesses and 221 documents. 13. It is submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that there is no evidence worth the name against the present accused persons. Further, they have submitted that the investigating agency has tried to develop a totally new case by bringing new witnesses and recording their false statements who had no concern with the incident. It has also been submitted that the investigating agency had deliberately left out the persons who were present at the place of incident and were independent persons. According to the counsels for the petitioners, it is on the basis of a concocted story and the evidence of strangers that charge sheet has come to be filed against the present petitioners. It has also been submitted that the investigating agency had deliberately left out the persons who were present at the place of incident and were independent persons. According to the counsels for the petitioners, it is on the basis of a concocted story and the evidence of strangers that charge sheet has come to be filed against the present petitioners. It has been submitted by the counsels for the petitioners that even as per the case of the prosecution, there is no direct evidence against the accused petitioners and the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and that too mainly on the basis of location of mobile phones which has been taken in accordance to the mobile towers of the area. 14. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the accused Sardar Singh that he was not the driver of the vehicle in which the deceased Dara Singh was carried and he was nowhere near the place where the deceased was kept in confinement. The logbook of the vehicle has also been seized during the course of investigation and there is no allegation in respect of its genuineness. Further, it has been submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner Sardar Singh had ever issued any fire arm or he had fired at the time of incident. Similarly, there is no record in respect of any telephone belonging to the petitioner Sardar Singh. He was only a driver, who had been driving the vehicle as per the instructions by his officers. Therefore, it has been submitted by the counsel for the accused Sardar Singh that he is, in no manner, involved in the commission of the alleged crime, so much so that he cannot be implicated even as a conspirator. 15. The counsels for the accused petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court by reading over many statements; documents including the FSL report and the replies of the experts to the specific queries put to them, so as to substantiate their submissions that the story putforth by the family members of the deceased and other persons of their group is false and a concocted one and the true facts and circumstances, with regard to the incident which had taken place in the early hours of 23.10.2006, were sought to be substituted. In the last, the counsels for the accused petitioners have submitted that in the instant case, which is having voluminous record containing statements of 254 witnesses; 221 documents and the charge sheet runs into a total of 7564 pages, would have to go a long way to conclude the trial, particularly in face of the facts that only about 25 witnesses have been examined so far. It has also been submitted that the accused petitioners are in jail since March, 2011 and both of them are low-paid employees who do not have any other bread-earner in their family and they are having old parents as well as children, who are dependent on them. 16. Contrary to it, the learned counsels for the prosecution have submitted that the alleged offences including that of conspiracy are made out against the petitioners from the evidence on record filed by the investigating agency. It has also been submitted that the deceased Dara Singh was carried from the house of Asgar at Fatehpur to Jaipur and kept in a secret place. Thereafter, he was taken to the place of incident and done to death by the accused persons, for which a false report had been lodged by the police personals showing that the deceased Dara Singh and one another had, after seeing the police party, ran away and while doing so, they had opened fire on them which resulted in cross firing between the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that from the material on record, the case of the prosecution had been established and the present accused petitioners are prima facie involved in it. He had laid much emphasis and referred extensively to the details in respect of mobile phones and its availability within different mobile towers as that of the deceased. He has submitted that the said evidence is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, as a conspirator. 17. Subsequently, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that bail application (4275/2012) of the accused A. Ponnuchami, the Superintendent of Police, SOG, has been rejected by the High Court, vide order dated 27.04.2012. He has submitted that the said evidence is sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime, as a conspirator. 17. Subsequently, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that bail application (4275/2012) of the accused A. Ponnuchami, the Superintendent of Police, SOG, has been rejected by the High Court, vide order dated 27.04.2012. A perusal of the said order reveals that the case of the prosecution against the accused A. Ponnuchami, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor for the CBI, was as follows:- “He has further contended that the accused petitioner A. Ponnuchami, the then SP, SOG, Jaipur Rajasthan has played an active role in the criminal conspiracy for the murder of Dara Singh. In pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy he had given illegal orders to his subordinates in SOG who abducted, kept in illegal confinement and subsequently murdered Dara Singh in cold blood giving it the shape of an encounter.” “He has further contended that he sent letter to the service provider for intercepting the mobile number of deceased Dara Singh. He has supervised the detention and release of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary and taking him to the loop of conspiracy for handing over Dara Singh. During the period of detention and release of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, accused Arshad Ali was in touch with him and he was in touch with accused Arvind Kumar Jain.” “He has further contended that there are documentary and oral evidence available against the accused petitioner. The documentary evidence against the accused petitioner is as under:- 1. Request letter sent by A.K. Jain to Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan for interception of mobile number of Dara Singh initialed by accused A. Ponnuchami. 2. Letter sent to Airtel by A. Ponnuchami for interception of mobile number of Vijay Chaudhary. 3. Letter sent to BSNL for interception of mobile number of deceased Dara Singh. 4. Call detail records of mobile number 9829052167 of A.K. Jain and mobile numbers 9414601535, 9829226111 of A. Ponnuchami and mobile No. 9829200195 & 9414601798 of Arshad Ali, Addl. SP, other team members of SOG and Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. 5. Letter No.3043-44 dated 25.10.2006 of SP, SOG, Jaipur. 6. 4. Call detail records of mobile number 9829052167 of A.K. Jain and mobile numbers 9414601535, 9829226111 of A. Ponnuchami and mobile No. 9829200195 & 9414601798 of Arshad Ali, Addl. SP, other team members of SOG and Vijay Kumar Chaudhary. 5. Letter No.3043-44 dated 25.10.2006 of SP, SOG, Jaipur. 6. Letter dated 11.8.2011 of Nodal Officer of Airtel Rajasthan alongwith annexure-J showing address of subscriber of mobile No.9829226111.” In para 13 of the aforesaid order of the High Court, liberty has been given to the accused A. Ponnuchami as under:- “13. The petitioner is free to move bail application before the trail court after recording of the statement of the all important and material witnesses which CBI deems fit and proper.” 18. The accused persons in the present bail applications are Surendra Singh, a Head Constable in the Rajasthan Police, and Sardar Singh a driver, who had been driving the Setmax Vehicle No. RJ-14-UA-4013, and suspected to have either followed the bus which was stopped near Kamla Nehru Nagar or that his vehicle was used for Nakabandi. The deceased Dara Singh was taken to the place of incident from the place where he was secretly kept, in some other vehicle and by other accused persons. Both the accused applicants had not used any fire arm. The incident had taken place near Kamla Nehru Nagar where cross firing was done from both the sides. The site plan of the incident had been prepared and the samples of blood stained soil were taken. The bus ticket No.3309683- dated 23.10.2006 giving time as 05.10 am. and seat No.10 of bus No. RJ-27-PA-0295 and articles belonging to the deceased Dara Singh, such as shawl and a purse were also recovered from the place of incident. The deceased was brought to Jaipur in a bolero jeep and taken to a secret place where he was kept in confinement. On 23.10.2006, the deceased was taken from the place of captivity to that of incident by other accused persons. There is no direct evidence against the accused Surendra Singh and the prosecution version is based on cellphone under different mobile towers. It may be mentioned here that the mobile towers are actually base trans-receiver stations, also known as BTS. On 23.10.2006, the deceased was taken from the place of captivity to that of incident by other accused persons. There is no direct evidence against the accused Surendra Singh and the prosecution version is based on cellphone under different mobile towers. It may be mentioned here that the mobile towers are actually base trans-receiver stations, also known as BTS. Such BTS covers a set of cells and each of them identified by unique cell I.D. A mobile continuously selects a cell and exchanges data and signaling traffic with the corresponding BTS. Therefore, through a cell ID, the location of the mobile instruments can be approximated. There is no evidence to show that the present accused/ applicants had conspired together with other accused persons to commit an offence in reference to common intention or design. 19. The present accused applicants are at the lowest end in the hierarchy of Special Operation Group team, Surendra Singh, being a Head Constable and Sardar Singh, being a driver, amongst other accused persons which included the officials of the rank of Inspector, Additional Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police, Additional Director General of Police, etc. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased Dara Singh was shot at by the accused Badri, Julfikar and Arvind Bhardwaj. 20. After completion of investigation, the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed the charge-sheet. The record of the charge-sheet is voluminous which is running in 7564 pages containing the statements of 254 witnesses and 221 documents. The said record of the investigation filed alongwith the challan, has been perused by this Court which had of course taken a considerable long time. The copies of the statement of the prosecution witne-sses, as recorded by the learned trial court, placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, have also been carefully perused. It would not be appropriate for this Court to observe in detail with regard to the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. and during the course of trial, such as the villagers, driver, conductor, etc. etc. because the same may prejudice the case of either parties. 21. While considering the question of bail, one has to remember its object which is neither punitive nor preventative but to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial by a reasonable amount of bail. etc. because the same may prejudice the case of either parties. 21. While considering the question of bail, one has to remember its object which is neither punitive nor preventative but to secure the appearance of the accused at the trial by a reasonable amount of bail. Deprivation of liberty is a punishment, which begins only after conviction and before that every person is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and found guilty. It is well known that detention in custody pending completion of trial causes great hardship. Seriousness of the charge is one of the relevant consideration amongst other factors and all are required to be taken note of while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction of granting bail to an accused pending trial. Valuable right of liberty of an individual on one hand and the interest of the society in general, has to be balanced while exercising the powers to grant bail. Since the case of State of Rajasthan, Jaipur vs. Balchand @ Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , it is a settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. Further that refusal of bail is a restriction on personal liberty of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We are also reminded of the principles of bail enunciated by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240 . Principles of bail were further elaborated in the landmark judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurcharan Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admninistration), (1978) 1 SCC 118 . Later, the aforesaid principles were reiterated in the case of (1) Babu Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579 ; (2) Moti Ram & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1978) 4 SCC 47 ; (3) Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka vs. State of Delhi, (2000) 9 SCC 383 ; (4) Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr., (2001) 4 SCC 280 ; (5) State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; (6) Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 and (7) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 694 . In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 116, has observed as under:- “Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 22. Recently, in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 , wherein there were serious charges relating to economic offences and had resulted in huge loss to the State Exchequer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “25.....But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused. The primary purposes of bail in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required.” Furthermore, in para 26 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- “26. When the undertrial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy trial, the question is : whether the same is possible in the present case. There are seventeen accused persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet...” The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 28, further observed:- “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 jeopardize 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.” 23. 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.” 23. After having given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsels for the rival parties and on careful perusal of the material on record, including the one of the investigation and recorded during trial, as well as the case of the prosecution against the present accused applicants, who neither had a control or supervision in the Special Operation Group Team established for the purpose of arresting harden criminals; none of them were involved in bringing the deceased from the place of captivity to the place of occurrence; the vehicle of which Sardar Singh was the driver was not used in bringing the deceased at the place of incident; none of the applicants had used any fire arm at the time of occurrence which was the cause of death of the deceased Dara Singh; the applicants have remained in custody for a considerable long time; the trial in the present case is still to proceed a long way before it is concluded because of the large number of accused totaling to 17 and voluminous record containing statements of 254 witnesses and 221 documents which is in 7564 pages; the report of the Department of the Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi, dated 04.01.2011 given by seven authorites of different departments of Forensic Sciences, particularly the replies to the questionnaire with regard to the genunineness of encounter; absence of evidence of conspiracy together with other accused to commit an offence in reference to common intention or design and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed just and proper to enlarge the applicants on bail. 24. Therefore, the bail applications are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-applicants (1) Surendra Singh S/o Shri Ramnath Singh and (2) Sardar Singh S/o Shri Banwari Lal in F.I.R. No.RC.2(S)/2010.SCU.V/SC.II registered with Police Station SPE/CBI/SCU.V/SC-II, New Delhi, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. Therefore, the bail applications are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-applicants (1) Surendra Singh S/o Shri Ramnath Singh and (2) Sardar Singh S/o Shri Banwari Lal in F.I.R. No.RC.2(S)/2010.SCU.V/SC.II registered with Police Station SPE/CBI/SCU.V/SC-II, New Delhi, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicants shall remain present before the Court on all the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (ii) that the applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (iii) that the applicants shall surrender their passport, if any (if not alre-ady surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the learned trial court that fact should also be supported by an affidavit.