JUDGMENT V.K. Ahuja, J. This order shall dispose of an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner in case FIR No. RC962012A0002 dated 22.02.2012 under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation, Shimla, H.P. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent. The respondent also filed reply. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The brief facts of the case as can be made out from the assertions made in the application and the reply filed by the respondent, are as under:- The petitioner is a partner alongwith his mother Smt. Ritu Goyal and they applied for the grant of term loan and Cash Credit to the State Bank of India, Taruwala Branch, District Sirmour. Shri Atul Krishan Goyal, the paternal uncle of the petitioner, was one of the guarantor. The property of said guarantor was kept as collateral security, which was situated in Mathura (U.P.). It is alleged that the said property was gifted to the said guarantor by his grandfather vide gift deed dated 20.3.1972. The petitioner was asked to submit a ‘title investigation report’ of the said property and he obtained the said report from one Shri Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, who was not on the panel of State Bank of India. The said title investigation report alongwith the evaluation report prepared by Shri O.P. Aggarwal, a Government approved evaluator, was submitted to the State Bank of India. The credit facility was granted to the petitioner to the tune of `2.00 crores on 21.11.2006, which facility was later on enhanced to ` 2.63 crores in October, 2007. The loan account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the State Bank of India, Taruwala Branch, Sirmour and the petitioner was not allowed to operate the said account. The petitioner opened a current bank account with the HDFC Bank, Surat, on 27.12.2007 Transactions were routed through the said account. The efforts of the petitioner to revive the concern failed, the account was again declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank on 20.9.2008. The State Bank of India filed a case against M/s Elite Shoes in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The efforts of the petitioner to revive the concern failed, the account was again declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) by the Bank on 20.9.2008. The State Bank of India filed a case against M/s Elite Shoes in the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The proceedings are pending before the said Tribunal at Chandigarh. It is also alleged that the Bank has already taken over symbolic possession of the primary security, i.e. stocks, debt book, plant and machinery as per letter dated 1.6.2010, Annexure P-2. It is further alleged that the Bank submitted evaluation of the stocks, debts plant and machinery before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, as per Annexure P-3 and a perusal of the said schedule shows that the value of primary security is ` 292 Lacs and is, thus, sufficient for the Bank to recover the total dues by alienating the same. 5. A complaint was lodged by the Regional Manager of the Bank on 21.2.2012, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered by the respondent (Central Bureau of Investigation) as alleged. The petitioner joined the investigation, submitted the relevant documents and had been in police custody from 12.12.2012 to 22.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner is in judicial custody and his application for regular bail was rejected by the learned Special Judge(CBI), Shimla. 6. The allegations which could be made out from the facts as alleged by the petitioner and the reply filed by the respondent are that he entered into criminal conspiracy with his uncle and others and fraudulently availed a credit facility of Rupees Two crores from SBI Taruwala Branch, Sirmour, on the basis of invalid copy of gift deed and a forged title investigation report. All these allegations are being looked into by the Investigating Agency and they have yet to give the final opinion or report in regard to these allegations. 7. The second allegation made against the petitioner is that he stopped routing sale proceedings through the loan account and, therefore, it was declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) first on 30.11.2007 and later again on 20.9.2009. It was also alleged that one of the guarantors dishonestly and fraudulently disposed of the property mortgaged as collateral security. The property which was mortgaged with the said Bank was also mortgaged to Vijaya Bank against credit facility availed by the petitioner, but the said property does not stand mortgaged with the Vijaya Bank, which loan was cleared. It was also alleged that one of the guarantors dishonestly and fraudulently disposed of the property mortgaged as collateral security. The property which was mortgaged with the said Bank was also mortgaged to Vijaya Bank against credit facility availed by the petitioner, but the said property does not stand mortgaged with the Vijaya Bank, which loan was cleared. There is no dispute that the property in dispute existed at Mathura. The allegations are that the evaluation report was wrongly got prepared by the petitioner in connivance with the other officials. There are allegations that one of the bank employees named in the report had connived with the petitioner, but no arrest has been made of the said bank employee and there is nothing on record to suggest that any action has been taken by the Bank against the said employee, named in the report also. 8. During the course of hearing, it came up on record that the amount to be recovered from the petitioner is to the extent of ` 4.10 crores, as submitted by the A.G.M. of the Bank. Bank has the guarantee of ` 1.76 crores as furnished by the petitioner, apart from the machinery, stocks and other items. The petitioner has been arrested and there are no allegations that he has not been assisting during the investigation of the case. 9. The petition has been opposed by the respondent on the ground that they have to recover the amount in question and that the petitioner may flee from the country, if released on bail and that his relatives were not cooperating during the investigation of the case. No recoveries are to be got effected from the other relatives and there is nothing on record to show that they refused to assist the Investigating Agency. The Bank is at liberty to take action as per law against those persons, if they are required in the case and they are not appearing inspite of notices issued by the Investigating Agency. Insofar as the allegations are concerned that the petitioner may win over the witnesses and influence them, the case is based mainly upon the documents already furnished to the Bank and taken into possession by the CBI and the case is mainly based upon the documentary evidence and not on the oral statements of the witnesses, who can be won over or influenced by the petitioner. 10. 10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 Supreme court Cases 40 and a perusal of the same shows that the question of grant of bail was considered by their Lordships at length and it was clearly observed in Para-22 that a person can not be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. The petitioners in those cases were also facing similar charges as the present petitioner. The observations made in Paras 21 and 23 are relevant and are being reproduced below:- “21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 11. From the above discussion of the facts of the case, it is clear that it is yet to be considered as to how the Bank authorities accepted the report of an Advocate, who was not on their panel and under what circumstances and how far the bank officials had also connived in granting the loan, even if it was against rules. It is yet to be considered as to whether the officials of the bank are also liable, for which, till this date, nothing is on record to show that any action has been taken against them about their involvement or they have been arrested or detained for interrogation. 12. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the fact that the proceedings have been initiated by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery and there are sufficient securities and the plant and machineries, possession of which have been symbolically taken over by the Bank authority and the amount inquisition can be easily recovered from those securities furnished by the petitioner. It has been rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can not be kept as hostage for repayment of the loan amount, which was allegedly sanctioned in his favour after completion of formalities. 13. During the course of hearing on 29.1.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish fresh security for the Bank amount recoverable from the petitioner to the Bank authorities, which can be verified by the next date and the Bank authorities can consider those documents, as to whether these are sufficient for the recovery of the Bank amount in question. However, today during the course of hearing, Mr. Desh Bandhu Chaudhary, A.G.M. S.B.I., appeared and made a statement that the Bank is not prepared to take fresh securities for the repayment of the loan amount in question, for which, proceedings have already been initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 14. I may also point out that earlier also, a petition bearing Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1293 of 2012, for bail was also moved, on which, the following order was passed on 2.1.2013 by this Court:- “At this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty reserved to file afresh. The permission as sought is granted and this petition is accordingly dismissed. 2. In view of the fact that the FIR was registered long back in February, 2012, there shall be a direction to the investigating agency to expedite the investigation of the case and the report, if any, be filed in the Court at the earliest. This petition stands accordingly disposed of.” 15. 2. In view of the fact that the FIR was registered long back in February, 2012, there shall be a direction to the investigating agency to expedite the investigation of the case and the report, if any, be filed in the Court at the earliest. This petition stands accordingly disposed of.” 15. The said direction was given by this Court on 2.1.2013 and inspite of the said direction, there is nothing on record to show as to what progress has been made in the investigation of the case and no report has been filed subsequently. Keeping in view all these facts and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for about two months and the case was registered long back in February, 2012 and it is based upon the documentary evidence, but the investigation has not been concluded so far. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be kept in judicial custody till the investigation is complete or he faces trial of the case, on the basis of the report submitted by the Investigating Agency. The petition for bail is accordingly allowed and the petitioner shall surrender his passport to the respondent/Investigating Agency and he shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the Court. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing two personal bonds in the sum of ` 5 Lacs each with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Shimla, or in his absence to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla and the petitioner shall be released after furnishing personal and surety bonds, as directed above, by this Court and on submission of his passport to the Investigating Agency. 16. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed.