1. Right to personal liberty of an individual is one of the important facets vouchsafed by a civilized society. An individual is part of the society. Some of rights are bestowed upon an individual by his very birth, which are called "Birth Rights" and some others are conferred upon him by laws of land which include the supreme law called "Constitution". 2. Right to personal liberty is one of the most important and cherished right of an individual. Since an individual is the part of the society, the right to liberty is neither absolute nor fathomless. An individual, a small unit, has to synchronize himself with a bigger unit called "Society". In order to run the affairs of the society, rights of an individual are being regulated in the larger interest of the community/society of which he is a part. A society governed by rule of law has been throughout craving to have 'order' in it, so as to enable the individual to hone its skills. An individual has never enjoyed absolute freedom, as same is always pregnant with potential of imperiling rights of other members of the society. Criminal justice system is the bed rock on which an orderly society rests. 'Order' in the society guarantees peace, which in turn, allows an individual and the society to develop both spiritually and materially. In order to achieve the aforementioned salutary purpose, a duty is cast on all to strengthen criminal justice system. 3. Reverting back to the case on hand, it appears that Jatinder Singh, Nephew of the petitioner, along with one Royal Singh allegedly murdered Amandeep Singh by firing upon him by Desi Pistol (Katta). This incident occurred on 29.8.2009. The case FIR No. 247/2009 was registered in Police Station Gandhi Nagar. It is also alleged that during the investigation of the case, weapon of assault was recovered at the instance of the accused and was kept in Malkhana, Gandhi Nagar, Police Station, Jammu. The case took yet another sordid turn, as it is alleged, that petitioner hatched criminal conspiracy in which not only civilians, but officers of the rank of the Senior Superintendent of Police and Station House Officer were also involved. It is alleged that pivotal role was played by the petitioner in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, and the weapon of offence and bullet were swapped to save and screen-off of the principal accused, Jatinder Singh. It is alleged that pivotal role was played by the petitioner in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy, and the weapon of offence and bullet were swapped to save and screen-off of the principal accused, Jatinder Singh. It is further alleged that petitioner managed to get a non functional weapon and on 30.08.2009 the original weapon of offence, which was seized earlier, was taken out from the Malkhana, its seal was broken and original weapon was removed and replaced with non functional weapon. It is this replaced non functional weapon which was sent to FSL, Jammu. The alleged swapping of weapon of assault was facilitated by then SSP, namely, Manohar Singh, and SHO, namely, Sultan Mehmood Mirza. It is also alleged that petitioner arranged money which was paid to one Ballistic expert and S. H. Bukhari. During the investigation of the case, in pursuance to the disclosure statement of accused, Nagar Singh, the original weapon of assault was recovered and thereafter money paid to accused Royal Singh and officials of the State FSL was also recovered. The swapped weapon of assault was shown to the witnesses, in whose presence actual weapon of assault was earlier seized and sealed. The said witnesses deposed before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) that it was not weapon of assault which was seized, and subsequently when the original weapon of assault was recovered, from the accused Jatinder Singh, it was seized and shown to the witnesses who affirmed that it was weapon of assault which was seized and sealed in their presence. During the investigation of the case, it was also found that the accused Nagar Singh had withdrawn Rs. 6.20 crores and allegedly spent same for retrieving his son from the clutches of law. Separate FIR has been registered with P/S Ganghi Nagar vide FIR No. 275/2009 for commission of offence under Sections 161/165-A RPC and 5(2) Prevention of corruption Act. This is what has emerged from the order of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 5.3.2012 wherein bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. From the said order, it further appeared that yet another FIR no. This is what has emerged from the order of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu dated 5.3.2012 wherein bail application of the petitioner has been rejected. From the said order, it further appeared that yet another FIR no. 164/2010 under Sections 115/20-B RFC has been registered against Nagar Singh and Jagar Singh on the allegations that Nagar Singh, while in custody and Jagar Singh, while on bail hatched another criminal conspiracy in which the then Superintendent of Jail and his PSO were also involved and an amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs were paid to the contract killers to eliminate one Sudershan Singh Wazir, who has been actively assisting the prosecution in the trial against the accused for having allegedly committed heinous crime of murder. Application seeking cancellation of bail of accused Jagar Singh has been filed before the trial court. 4. Petitioner has been charged for having allegedly committed offence under Section 409/120-B, 201/34 RPC read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act by the learned trial court. Earlier accused along with other two persons, namely, Nagar Singh and Jagar Singh filed bail application registered as B.A. No. 3/2010 before this court. The said bail application was rejected so far as it pertained to Nagar Singh and petitioner, whereas Jagar Singh was ordered to be enlarged on an interim bail for a period of three months. This court gave liberty to the peititoner to move fresh bail application before the trial court after the statement of the eye witness Tej pal Singh and other two eye witnesses were recorded by the trial court. The order dated 3.5.2010 passed in B.A. No. 3/2010 was challenged by the mother of the deceased as also by the accused who were not granted bail, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP(s). After the statement of the Tejpal Singh and other two witnesses were recorded by the trial court, petitioner filed bail application in pursuance to the liberty given to him by this court, which application as already stated, has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 5.3.2012. It is in this backdrop the bail application has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. A. K. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bail cannot be denied and withheld as a measure punishment. It is in this backdrop the bail application has been filed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. A. K. Sawhney, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bail cannot be denied and withheld as a measure punishment. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, bail cannot be denied to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been languishing in the judicial custody for considerable period of time and in view of the fact that almost ninety eight (98) witnesses are to be examined by the learned trial court and in two years time only two witnesses have been examined, it will thus definitely take long time to conclude the trial and keeping the petitioner in custody for this long period will neither serve the interest of the petitioner nor the ends of justice. Learned counsel referred to observation made by this court in bail application No. 3/2010 and submitted that bail was denied to the petitioner earlier, so as to enable the prosecution to get the statement of the Tejpal Singh recorded. Learned counsel submitted that statement of the prosecution witness havingbeen recorded and there being nothing further to be done and in view of the earlier order of this court, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner will not abuse the concession of bail granted to him. Learned counsel in support of his contention referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5650 of 2011) titled Sanjay Chandra (appellant) v. CBI (respondent), AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1925 titled Satya Brat Gain v. State of Bihar, (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 560 titled Babba Alais Shankar Raghuman Rohida v. State of Maharastra, (2000) 9 Supreme Court Cases 383 titled Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka v. State of Delhi and (2009) 9 Supreme Court cases 442 titled Sangeeta v. Suresh Kumar, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2447 titled State of Rajasthan, Jaipur, appellant v. Balchand, Respondent and case titled Hussainara Khatoon and ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that an application seeking cancellation of bail granted in favour of the Jagar Singh has already been filed before the trial court which has not been considered by the trial court. 7. Right to personal liberty is one of the most cherished rights of human being and is to be zealously guarded by the courts of law. A court of law is duty bound to struck balance between the individual rights and the rights of society at large. The society is big whole of which an individual is a part/component. Any act of an individual which impairs and threatens the rights of the members of the society has to be viewed seriously. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, though provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law, does not, however, by its very text and tenor guarantee absolute freedom to an individual. When a criminal case is registered against a person, State steps into shoes of the prosecutor, as in a democratic society governed by rule of law, an offence committed by the criminal is treated to be an offence committed against the State, an organ created by Constitution, which represents the will of the people. Since it is the constitutional and statutory duty of the State to maintain 'order' in the society, it becomes its duty to ensure that guilty are punished by the Court in accordance with the law. 8. In a non bailable offence, where punishment provided is for ten years or life imprisonment, though the offence is non bailable one, but the court in the over all facts and circumstances of a case can order for enlarging the accused on bail. This concession of bail can be granted only when court is prime facie satisfied that accused when granted bail will not impede the process of administration of justice. When a person is arrested for having committed a non bailable offence which is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty, the court may consider to allow the arrested person, to have limited freedom, by enlarging him on bail. When a person is arrested for having committed a non bailable offence which is not punishable with life imprisonment or death penalty, the court may consider to allow the arrested person, to have limited freedom, by enlarging him on bail. When a person is arrested for having allegedly committed non bailable offence punishable for ten years or life imprisonment, the Court in order to ensure that trial in the case is conducted in free and fair manner, in its wisdom and on over all assessment of the facts and circumstances appearing therein, can order remanding the accused person either to police custody or to the judicial custody and may even choose to given him into the custody of the person, who may stand surety that the accused will not involve in such activity which may impede a free and fair trial of the case. 9. An uncouth attempt on the part of the accused to derail the trial before the court of law by indulging in unlawful activities which has further potential of collapsing the criminal case registered against him, for which he has been put on trial by framing charges against him, would in turn amount to not only destabilizing the criminal justice system, but inflicting serious assault on the interest of the society itself. 10. If it, prima facie, appears that trial in a criminal case will not be allowed to reach to its logical conclusion in free and fair manner, then bail is not to be granted to the accused person. The trial of an accused in a criminal case can be jeopardized in many ways. It can be jeopardized by threatening or alluring the prosecution witnesses; by taking steps to eliminate the prosecution witnesses or all those who are interested in prosecution of the case; and by taking steps to destroy or change the evidence so as to ensure that the accused is acquitted of all the charges. All these efforts and attempts, if made or if there are reasonable apprehensions on the material available that such attempts would be made, then bail if granted to the accused would constitute a direct assault on the liberty of the members of the society at large. Such acts would also constitute a direct assault on the criminal justice system and the rule of the law. 11. The allegations against the petitioner have been briefly summarized in this order. Such acts would also constitute a direct assault on the criminal justice system and the rule of the law. 11. The allegations against the petitioner have been briefly summarized in this order. Charges have been framed against the accused and he has been put on trial. It is prima facie proved that in order to extricate the accused, in a murder case, from the clutches of law and in order to ensure that the justice is not meted out, petitioner, a nucleus of the criminal conspiracy, had succeeded in swapping the weapon of assault allegedly used for murdering the deceased. The senior Police Officers were involved in commission of serious crime. Ballistic Experts/FSL authorities were bribed. Conspiracy hatched to murder Sudershan Singh Wazir has also been unearthened in which it is alleged that besides others petitioner was involved and case has been registered in this behalf. Application seeking cancellation of bail of Jagar Singh has also been filed. In these circumstances, in order to ensure a free and fair trial, it will not be appropriate at this stage to enlarge the accused on bail. The judgments cited at the bar in the facts and circumstances of this case are of no assistance to the petitioner. 12. For the above stated reasons, this application is dismissed. Learned trial Judge is requested to expedite the trial of the case and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The application seeking cancellation of the bail in respect of the Jaggar Singh be also considered and decided in accordance with law.