Judgment : 1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents and Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener. 2. The applicant, who has been arrested on 22/11/2013 in Crime No.168 of 2013 registered with Porvorim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 474, 475, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed the above Criminal Application (Bail) No. 84 of 2014 for bail, whereas the complainant M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited through its Director, at whose instance the said Crime No. 168 of 2013 has been registered, has filed the above Stamp Number (Application) No. 1262 of 2014 praying for leave to intervene in the bail application. 3. A reply resisting the application for bail has been filed by the Investigating Officer. The intervenor has also resisted the application on various grounds stated in the application for intervention. 4. Shri Tarun Khattar, the Director of M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited, Porvorim, Goa has lodged a complaint on 20/11/2013 with Porvorim Police Station alleging as follows: Between 11/11/2013 to 18/11/2013, the applicant and the manager of Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd, St. Inez Branch and other unknown persons, with their common intention, dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver Casino gaming chips worth Rs. 6 Crores by taking a sum of Rs. 6 Crores in cash from the complainant in lieu of Pay Orders bearing nos. 004523, 004524 and 004525 dated 19/10/2013 for the sum of Rs.80,00,000/- Rs. 60,00,000/- and Rs. 90,00,000/-respectively as genuine, drawn on Goa Urban Cooperative Bank and when the same was deposited in Ratnakar Bank, Porvorim, they were returned back dishonoured on the ground that the same were fake / forged. Further two more pay orders bearing numbers 004545 dated 11/11/2013 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and 004544 dated 11/11/2013 for Rs. 1,70,00,000/-were returned from the bank on the ground that the same were fake/forged. Thus, the accused persons cheated M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited to deliver cash to the tune of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-. 5. Further two more pay orders bearing numbers 004545 dated 11/11/2013 for Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and 004544 dated 11/11/2013 for Rs. 1,70,00,000/-were returned from the bank on the ground that the same were fake/forged. Thus, the accused persons cheated M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited to deliver cash to the tune of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-. 5. The applicant had earlier filed Criminal Application (Bail) No. 242 of 2013 before this Court and by order dated 21/12/2013, the same was dismissed mainly on the ground that the investigation was not yet completed. The present position is that the entire investigation has now been completed and the case which was charge-sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mapusa as charge sheet No.08/2014, has been already committed to the Court of Sessions and pending trial before the learned Sessions Judge vide Sessions Case No. 13 of 2014. The applicant is in judicial custody as from 06/12/2013. More than five months have passed from the date of arrest of the applicant. 6. The offence under Section 489-A which pertains to counterfeiting currency note or bank note provides for punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and fine. Section 489-B of IPC which pertains to using as genuine forged or counterfeited notes or bank notes provides for punishment for imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. Section 489-C which pertains to possession of forged or counterfeit currency notes or bank notes provides for punishment of imprisonment which may extend to 7 years or fine or both. Section 420 of IPC concerns cheating and provides for imprisonment which can extend to 7 years and fine. Section 465 of IPC pertains to forgery and provides for imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both. Section 467 of IPC pertains to forgery of valuable security, will or authority to make or transfer any valuable security or to receive any money, etc when the valuable security is promissory note of the Central Government and it provides for punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. Section 468 pertains to forgery for the purpose of cheating and which provides for imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. Section 468 pertains to forgery for the purpose of cheating and which provides for imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. Section 472 of IPC pertains to making or counterfeiting a seal, plate, etc with intent to commit forgery punishable under Section 467 of IPC or possessing with like intent any such seal, plate, etc knowing the same to be counterfeited and it provides for punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. Section 474 of IPC pertains to having possession of a document knowing it to be forged, with intent to use it as genuine if the document is one of the description mentioned in Section 466 of IPC and it provides for imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. Section 475 of IPC pertains to counterfeiting a device or mark used for authenticating documents described in Section 467 of IPC or possessing counterfeit marked material and provides for punishment of imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and fine. Lastly, Section 409 of IPC pertains to Criminal Breach of Trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent, etc. which provides for imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and fine. Thus, none of the offences is punishable with death or with some minimum mandatory imprisonment, if convicted. 7. The reply reveals that the statement of all the relevant witnesses have been recorded. Pay Orders and other documents have been attached. The hard disc of the DVR of CCTV camera installed in 'Casino Pride' ship has been attached. The specimen handwriting, signatures and numericals in English of the applicant have also been obtained and have been sent to Director of CFSL, Hyderabad along with the hard disk of Casino and two blank hard disks to retrieve all the deleted as well as existing available data from the hard disk. In the reply, the only objection that is stated is that if the applicant is released on bail, he will jump the bail and threaten the complainant and the witnesses and it will become very difficult to trace and arrest his associates, if any. 8. It is not stated in the reply as to who are those associates and the words “if any” have been used. 8. It is not stated in the reply as to who are those associates and the words “if any” have been used. It is not known as to how the arrest of the associates, if any, would become difficult, if the applicant is released on bail. Even otherwise, tracing of other accused persons cannot be a ground for detaining a person in custody. 9. Almost all the witnesses, who are the staff members of the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. or of the Casino Pride know the applicant and the applicant is not stated to be having any criminal antecedents. The case, otherwise, would mostly depend upon documentary evidence. The fear of the Investigating Officer that the applicant would threaten the complainant and other witnesses, if released on bail, appears to be fanciful and does not seem to be having any force. 10. That the applicant would jump bail if released on bail is a ground taken in almost all the bail applications to object grant of bail. It is not made clear as to why the investigating officer feels so. There is no past experience for saying so. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It is not known as to how much time would be consumed for conclusion of the said Sessions Case No. 13/2014. It cannot be expected that the applicant should remain in custody for unlimited period till the conclusion of the case. That would amount to punishment which, otherwise, starts only after conviction. Deprivation of liberty, in this manner, must be considered a punishment. 11. Mr. De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervener has relied upon various judgments. In the case of “Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, [2014(1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 477], which pertained to cancellation of bail in a case involving offences under Sections 120-B, 406 409, 411, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it was found the charge was serious supported by a detailed charge sheet running into 268 pages; role of the appellant was not less than that of three others whose bail had been rejected; and no adequate opportunity was given to the Public Prosecutor to reply on the basis of the charge sheet. The judgment in the case of “Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs. The judgment in the case of “Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others”, [2001 Bom. CR. (Cri.) 879] also pertained to cancellation of bail granted by JMFC to respondents no. 2 and 3, who were charged for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Here also, bail was granted without hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel next relied upon the case of “State of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Shantilal Nahar”, [2004(1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 498] which again pertained to cancellation of bail granted to accused no. 1, who was charged with offence punishable under Section 167 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999. Here, the accused was charged for circulating fake currency notes in the market and also depositing them in the banks. The order of release on bail was found to be manifestly perverse. Learned Counsel next relied upon the case of “Puran Vs. Rambilas and another”, [ (2001) 6 SCC 338 ] which also pertained to cancellation of bail granted to the appellant, who was charged under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC. It was held that an order granting bail passed by ignoring the material and evidence on record and without giving reasons would be perverse and contrary to principles of law and such an order would itself provide a ground of moving an application for cancellation of bail. Reliance was also placed on the case of “Santosh Bhaurao Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra”, [ 1989(1) Bom.C.R. 119 ] in which the offence was punishable with death or imprisonment for life and it was held that bail cannot be granted if there is reasonable ground for believing that the accused has committed offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, even if discretion is given to the Court to impose lesser punishment. I have gone through all the above judgments and I am of the considered view that none of them is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor urged that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore he should not be released on bail. He relied upon the case of “Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration)”, [ AIR 1978 SC 179 (1)]. 12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor urged that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is guilty of the offence punishable with imprisonment for life and therefore he should not be released on bail. He relied upon the case of “Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration)”, [ AIR 1978 SC 179 (1)]. The Apex Court has observed that since the Sessions Judge or the High Court will be approached by an accused only after refusal of bail by the Magistrate, it is not possible to hold that the mandate of the law of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. for the Magistrate will be ignored by the High Court or by the Sessions Judge. In paragraph 21, it is observed as under: “Section 437 Cr. P. C. is concerned only with the court of Magistrate. It expressly excluded the High Court and the court of session. The language of S. 437 (1) may be contrasted with S. 437(7) to which we have already made a reference. While under sub-sec. (1) of S. 437 Cr. P. C. the words are : "If there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty". Sub-Sec. (7) says : "that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence". This difference in language occurs on account of the stage at which the two sub--sections operate. During the initial investigation of a case in order to confine a person in detention, there should only appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, whereas after submission of charge-sheet or during trial for such an offence the court has an opportunity to form somewhat clear opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. At that stage the degree of certainty of opinion in that behalf is more after the trial is over and judgment is deferred than at a pre-trial stage even after the chargesheet. There is a noticeable trend in the above provisions of law that even in case of such non-bailable offences a person need not be detained in custody for any period more than it is absolutely necessary, if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of such an offence. There is a noticeable trend in the above provisions of law that even in case of such non-bailable offences a person need not be detained in custody for any period more than it is absolutely necessary, if there are no reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of such an offence. There will be, however, certain overriding considerations to which we shall refer hereafter. Whenever a person is arrested by the police for such an offence, there should be materials produced before the court to come to a conclusion as to the nature of the case he is involved in or he is suspected of. If at that stage from the materials available there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the person has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the court has no other option than to commit him to custody. At that stage, the court is concerned with the existence of the materials against the accused and not as to whether those materials are credible or not on the merits.” 13. The judgment in the case of “Gurcharan Singh and others”(supra) also pertained to cancellation of bail, granted by the Sessions Court in the case involving the offence under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of IPC. The Delhi High Court had canceled the bail. The appellants had approached the Hon'ble supreme Court against the order of cancellation of bail. In the present case, no offence punishable with death is involved. The present case, though, involves economic offences, however, does not pertain to currency notes, but is in respect of bank notes and does not concern public and/or public money. The present case is concerned with the money of M/s. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation Private Limited only. It is seen from the complaint of the Director of Goa Coastal Resort and Recreation (P) Ltd. that the applicant is not a stranger to the 'off shore Casino' and is otherwise a regular customer of the said Casino and maintains running account with them. There is also record in the form of statement of Shri Shrinivas Nayak, a Director of M/s Goa Coastal Resort & Recreation (P) Ltd. showing that the applicant had allegedly requested the complainant to wait for some days for him to clear the dues. 14. In the case of “Sanjay Chandra Vs. There is also record in the form of statement of Shri Shrinivas Nayak, a Director of M/s Goa Coastal Resort & Recreation (P) Ltd. showing that the applicant had allegedly requested the complainant to wait for some days for him to clear the dues. 14. In the case of “Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, [ (2012) 1 SCC 40 ], the Apex Court has held thus: “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 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. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should 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. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a 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 or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.” 15. In the case of “BhagirathiSinh Judeja Vs. State” ( AIR 1984 SC 372 ), the Apex Court has observed thus: “5. In the case of “BhagirathiSinh Judeja Vs. State” ( AIR 1984 SC 372 ), the Apex Court has observed thus: “5. ...... But even where a prima faice 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 is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. .................... 8. …....... And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well-settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as punishment, before trial, is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence.” 16. The applicant, as stated in the complaint itself, is a permanent resident of Old Goa, Panaji and is not a stranger to the complainant and other witnesses who are mostly the employees of the said Company. It is not the case of the respondents that there are any criminal antecedents with regard to the applicant. Appropriate conditions can be imposed upon the applicant to ensure his presence during trial. 17. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the stage has come now to release the applicant on bail as no purpose will be served by detaining him in custody any more. 18. In the result, the application is allowed. (a) The applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No. 168 of 2013 registered with Porvorim Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C, 420, 465, 467, 468, 472, 474, 475, 409 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (Sessions Case No. 13 of 2014) on execution of Personal Bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, before the Trial Court, on the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if he has one, before the Trial Court to remain there until further orders of the Trial Court. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety in the like amount, before the Trial Court, on the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if he has one, before the Trial Court to remain there until further orders of the Trial Court. (ii) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make an inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without any previous permission of the Trial Court. (iv) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities during the period of bail. 19. The application stands disposed of. So also, the intervention application stands disposed of accordingly.