JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. This order will set at rest application under Section 498 Cr. P.C. filed by applicant-Peer Mushtaq Ahmad, for grant of bail in case FIR No. 24/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 420/406/201/120-B Ranbir Penal code read with Section 5, 5(1)(d) 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Applicant was arrested on 15th November 2013 in connection with case FIR No. 24/2013, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 201, 120B Ranbir Penal code read with Section 5(1)(d), 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. Applicant is presently lodged in Central Jail Srinagar. Charge was framed against him on 12th March 2015. 3. The moment bid for grant of bail was made by applicant, twenty witnesses including statement of the approver are said to have been examined by prosecution. 50 persons are said to be enlisted amongst accused persons, including applicant in the aforementioned cases and all of them, except applicant, according to counsel for petitioner, are said to have been released on bail. The first bail application moved by applicant on 29th January 2014, was dismissed vide order dated 12th February 2014. There against Revision Petition was directed. Alongside thereto bail application, bearing No. 55/2014, under Section 498 Cr.P.C. was preferred by him. However, said bail application did not succeed and was dismissed vide order dated 30th March, 2014 by Division Bench of this Court. 4. Applicant on 20th February, 2015 initiated second round for vouchsafe of bail before Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. The application, vide order dated 2nd May 2015, saw the same destination as was seen by first application. Special Judge Anticorruption dismissed the application on the ground that trial of the case was to take some time and there was no change in the circumstances warranting a fresh look into the plea of applicant for bail. Against order dated 2nd May 2015, Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2015, was preferred by applicant. Concomitant to Criminal Revision, bail application No. 46/2015, was also preferred. Respondents opposed bail application, inter alia, on the ground that out of 78 witnesses only 06 witnesses had been examined and remaining 72 witnesses were yet to be examined and if petitioner was enlarged on bail he would try to win over the witnesses. Given the said plea of respondents, the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to enlarge applicant on bail. Given the said plea of respondents, the Division Bench of this Court was not inclined to enlarge applicant on bail. The bail application was dismissed vide order dated 20th August, 2016. The Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, was directed to conduct trial of the case on day to day basis and complete the same in accordance with law within a period of six months and if prosecution or accused persons were not cooperating for conduct of trial, the Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, would compel presence of accused persons and witnesses in accordance with law. Insofar as applicants treatment was concerned as he was stated to be not well, the Division Bench pointed out that jail authorities could take care of applicant by giving him best treatment. 5. The instant application, on its filing, initially came up for consideration on 5th November, 2015. Notice was waived by counsel for respondents. Reply and objections were directed to be filed. 6. Respondents have filed reply. They insist that the investigation conducted reveals that applicant was Chairman of Board of Professional Entrance Examination (BOPEE) and as Chairman, BOPEE, he was sole custodian and trustee of the question papers for Common Entrance Test (GET) 2012. Applicant, as averred by respondents in their reply, was found to have abused his official position by making sale of question papers against consideration prior to conduct of examination and conferred undue benefit upon him and accused beneficiaries. The applicant is said to have dishonestly and fraudulently made available question papers along with answer key to his associate prior to conduct of examination, who in turn put the question papers on sale to accused beneficiaries which resulted in selection of undeserving candidates for MBBS course. Assertions of respondents is that on the strength of clinching oral and documentary, coupled with circumstantial evidence, the charge sheet against accused persons, including applicant, was presented and charges framed on 12th March, 2015. Forty Seven witnesses are said to have been examined and that the evidence recorded has substantiated and established that applicant has dishonestly and by abuse of official position handed over question papers along with answer key to his associate against huge consideration who in turn has sold these question papers to other accused persons through different agents. Several bail applications, according to respondents, have been dismissed, given the gravity and seriousness of offence committed by applicant. Several bail applications, according to respondents, have been dismissed, given the gravity and seriousness of offence committed by applicant. Further contention of respondents is that statement of approver does not suffer from any infirmity. It is insisted that evidence recorded before the trial court has substantiated presence of Dr. Nisar Ahmad Hajam at Hotel Dal Jeel Nehru Park, Srinagar, on 22nd and 23rd of June, 2012 and statement of Farooq Ahmad Itoo, recorded during trial divulges that Dr. Nisar Ahmad has paid Rs. 2.00 lakhs to him to make available copies of question papers and answer key to Dr. Nisar Ahmad, for his nephew accused Yasir Yousuf Hajam. The approver is said to have further deposed that Dr. Nisar called on him for the said purpose, who reached at Hotel Dal Jeel along with his nephew on the fateful day and furnished a set of copies of question papers and answer key to Dr. Nisar. During course of cross examination, it is insisted by respondents, he has further gone to clarify that rooms in the Hotel Dal Jeel were reserved by Dr. Nisar. The statement of approver, Farooq Ahmad Itoo, as averred by respondents in the reply, was corroborated by witness Ashiq Hussain Teli, who happens to be employee of Hotel Dal Jeel, by confirming that Dr. Nisar booked rooms for two days i.e. 22nd and 23rd June, 2012. Respondents, on the basis of assertions taken in reply, seek dismissal of application. 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter. 8. Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, learned senior counsel appearing for applicant; during course of argumentation, has stated that approvers statement is not corroborated by rest of witnesses so far produced and vehemently exhorts vouchsafement of bail in favour of applicant. To document his arguments, learned counsel places reliance on decisions rendered in: (i) Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1975 SC 856 ]; (ii) Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2000 SC 3352 ] (iii) Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158 ]; (iv) Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand [ AIR 2008 SC 391 ] 9. Mr. R.A. Khan, learned AAG, per contra, to resist accord of bail, relies on judgments passed in case titled: (i) Balchand Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh, dated 3rd February, 2009 (Misc. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2004) 4 SCC 158 ]; (iv) Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand [ AIR 2008 SC 391 ] 9. Mr. R.A. Khan, learned AAG, per contra, to resist accord of bail, relies on judgments passed in case titled: (i) Balchand Bharti v. State of Chhattisgarh, dated 3rd February, 2009 (Misc. Criminal No. 2302 of 2008); (ii) Ravindersingh @ Ravi Pavar v. State of Gujarat, dated 22nd February, 2013 (Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 3334 of 2012); (iii) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Vijay Sai Reddy, dated 9th May, 2013 (Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2013 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 5946 of 2012). 10. The judgement rendered in Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana [ AIR 1975 SC 856 ] relied upon by learned counsel for applicant, deliberated upon the corroboration of approver's statement with that of prosecution case, connecting accused with the crime. So is judgements rendered in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra [ AIR 2000 SC 3352 ] and Sitaram Sao v. State of Jharkhand [ AIR 2008 SC 391 ]. Qua judgement rendered in Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [ (2004) 4 SCC 158 ], it also does not relate to instant matter. The instant application relates to grant of bail. Insofar as judgements cited by Mr. R.A. Khan, learned AAG, are concerned, those concern to granting or not granting bail in view of the; particular set and facts of every case. 11. It is pertinent to point out here that every case has particular set of facts, events, and circumstances and every judgment is rendered only alter taking note of and considering peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. A judgment of a Court is not to be read mechanically as a Euclids theorem nor as if it was a Statute. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 12. It has been said a long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not what logically follows from it. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. 12. The present case relates to vouchsafe of bail. The law of bails, like any other branch of law, has its own underlying principle to comprehend, for which one has to go through a number of stages of its development. In primitive society, one can hardly conceive of it, but in a civilised society bail has become the rule. It is sure-fire that the law of bails occupies a key place in administration of justice and is now a very valuable branch of the law of the Criminal procedure. The concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the constabularys power to restrict the liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime and the presumption of innocence in his favour. The State, in its anxiety to protect its subjects from the onslaught of criminals, has invested the law enforcement agency with powers of arrest and approaching the criminal courts with a prayer for keeping the accused in custody. But it would be not only improper but also unjust to keep an accused person under arrest with the object of punishing him on the assumption that he is guilty, if he was eventually acquitted on trial. 13. The law of bails is not a stagnant law but is growing all the time, molding itself with the exigencies of time. Thus, in times of war and crisis, it leans in favour of the society and the government and in times of peace and tranquility it leans in favour of the individual and the subject. The modern concept of keeping an under-trial in detention is to prevent repetition of offence with which he is charged or perpetration of some other offence and to secure his attendance at the trial. However, noble the concept may be, it has to be achieved within framework of a mans right to liberty, which is the cherished right that he enjoys along with other rights collectively known as his freedom. 14. However, noble the concept may be, it has to be achieved within framework of a mans right to liberty, which is the cherished right that he enjoys along with other rights collectively known as his freedom. 14. 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. 15. 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 preventive. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be 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. 16. Let us deal with a minor issue canvassed by Mr. R.A. Khan, learned AAG. It is submitted that this Court has refused to entertain the application filed by applicant and, therefore, there is no reason or change in the circumstance to take a different view in the application on hand. I am not impressed by this argument. When the applications were earlier made by applicant, there had been either charge not framed, or if charge framed trial was at its initial stage, or if trial initiated, maximum witnesses were yet to cross witness box. Now the circumstances and situation has changed and maximum witnesses have crossed the witness box. We cannot compare the earlier and the present circumstances and conclude that there are no changed circumstances and reject the instant application. 17. It is well settled law that no successive bail application can be allowed without change in the circumstances. Of course, the principles of res-judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but repeated filing of bail applications without being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. 17. It is well settled law that no successive bail application can be allowed without change in the circumstances. Of course, the principles of res-judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but repeated filing of bail applications without being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. An order, refusing an application for bail, does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. If a change of substantial nature in the facts and circumstances could be pointed out to the court at the time of second or subsequent application for bail, there is no legal bar against entertaining such application. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains some provisions that create a bar against re-hearing the matter. Section 369 of the Code lays down that save as otherwise provided by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force, no court, when it has signed its judgment, shall alter or review the same, except to correct clerical error. The bar created here is against altering or reviewing a judgment or final order disposing of a case. An interlocutory order of judgment is one made or given during the progress of an action, but which does not finally dispose of the rights of the parties. There can be no dispute that the order passed on a bail application is an interlocutory order and cannot be said to be "judgment or final order disposing of a case". Therefore Section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can have no application to rejection of a bail application. The natural consequences that may follow on account of the aforesaid elucidation is that successive bail applications are not barred by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of a convicted accused in an appeal or of an accused during investigation or trial. It is pertinent to point out here, as discussed above, that there is change in circumstances in the present case. Thus applicant is not precluded to knock at portals of this Court with instant application for vouchsafe of bail. 18. An option is given to accused, while having glance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether he wants to approach the Sessions Court or to the High Court. Both the Courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Thus applicant is not precluded to knock at portals of this Court with instant application for vouchsafe of bail. 18. An option is given to accused, while having glance of the provisions of Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether he wants to approach the Sessions Court or to the High Court. Both the Courts have concurrent jurisdiction. When previously bail application is rejected by both the courts i.e. by the Sessions Court as well as by the High Court, and if successive bail application is to be preferred second time or subsequent ant if accused, like applicant in the present case, approaches the High Cour directly, it cannot be held that such type of application is not tenable at law On the contrary, it is tenable at law and it is in accordance with Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a petitioner approaches a High Court, he is losing a chance to approach the trial court, otherwise the petitioner will have two chances, first to approach the Sessions Court and then to approach the High Court, but, if the petitioner is not choosing his option to approach the trial court, looking to his own case and looking to his previously rejected bail applications by the Honble High Court, such a choice is vested in the petitioner to approach this Court. The accused may choose High Court or he may choose the Sessions Court under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of this legal position, a direct successive bail application before a High Court is tenable at law. Having said so, application on hand, therefore, cannot be held as not tenable. 19. In the present case maximum number of witnesses, obviously, approver as well, have crossed witness box so far. When the matter came up for consideration on 30th November 2015, learned counsel for respondents informed this Court that of 104 witnesses, 58 had either been examined or filed their affidavit and that 46 witnesses were yet to cross witness box and that the day-to-day hearing was going on. The matter again came up for consideration on 18th December, 2015. When the matter came up for consideration on 30th November 2015, learned counsel for respondents informed this Court that of 104 witnesses, 58 had either been examined or filed their affidavit and that 46 witnesses were yet to cross witness box and that the day-to-day hearing was going on. The matter again came up for consideration on 18th December, 2015. This Court observed that trial saw some progress in the last few months and grant of bail merited serious consideration in the event trial was not concluded by 20th February, 2016 or even there before inasmuch as the chance of trial getting concluded by said date appeared bleak and that incarceration, ailment of applicant and his old age could not go unnoticed and were to be considered on the anvil of material placed on record that ex facie extend support to grounds urged in the application. It was also observed that the bail was not to be withheld as a measure of punishment as only presumption available under criminal law is one of the innocence of accused till held guilty. 20. Latest status report of the trial was, vide order dated 5th April 2016, directed to be filed. The compliance report filed by respondents indicates that trial court has recorded statements of 97 prosecution witnesses and the prosecution is in the process of producing seven more prosecution witnesses including two investigating officers, which will conclude the prosecution evidence. Therefore, out of 108 witnesses, 11 witnesses have to cross the witness box. In that view of matter, it would be appropriate to say that the circumstances, that were prevalent either at the time earlier application was dismissed by the Division or at the time application on hand was filed by the applicant seeking grant of bail, have now changed. 21. The apprehension earlier nursed was that applicants release on bail would scuttle the trial as also pose inducement and threat to witnesses to be produced before the trial court, has been put at rest. Learned counsel for applicant states that all the accused persons, numbering 50 including the approver Farooq Ahmad Itoo, except present applicant, have been released on bail either by the Supreme Court or by this Court. Learned counsel for applicant states that all the accused persons, numbering 50 including the approver Farooq Ahmad Itoo, except present applicant, have been released on bail either by the Supreme Court or by this Court. Learned Counsel for applicant, to document his submission, refers to bail orders, annexed with application on hand as Annexure B. By that, it is present applicant only who is in incarceration for last two and a half year. 22. Pending completion of trial keeping a person detained in custody could be a cause of great hardship. From lime to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted 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 arty 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. 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. 23. Learned counsel for respondents opposes prayer for grant of bail. He points out that Trial Court and this Court have dealt with the matter having regard to all relevant considerations, including nature of allegations, material available, likelihood of misuse of bail and also the impact of the crime in question on the society. He also points out that the Court below and this Court have found that there is a dear prima facie case showing complicity of the applicant; the applicant was the kingpin in the conspiracy; applicant has the potential of influencing witnesses and adducing of witness is still pending. He also points out that the Court below and this Court have found that there is a dear prima facie case showing complicity of the applicant; the applicant was the kingpin in the conspiracy; applicant has the potential of influencing witnesses and adducing of witness is still pending. As already discussed, the delay in conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Maximum number of witnesses, as stated above, have crossed witness box, thus, the argument qua likelihood of applicant thwarting or impeding the smooth trial, is specious. Therefore, it is not in the interest of justice that applicant should be in jail for an indefinite period till outcome of the case before the trial court. 24. It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof is not the only considerations for declining bail. Delay in commencement and conclusion of trial is a factor to be taken into account and the accused cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period if trial is not likely to be concluded within reasonable time. Reference may be made to decisions of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42 ; State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 ; State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 ; and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 . 25. If an application for enlargement on bail is rejected, such rejection, it is well settled, will not preclude a person to file subsequent application for grant of bail in the event there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing require that such person be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "8. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing require that such person be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "8. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorised by law. But even persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing require that such persons be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so." 26. In Raneef (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dickens novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille." 27. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), it was observed: "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. 28. The concept and philosophy of bail was discussed by the Supreme Court in Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 , thus: "6. "Bail" remains an undefined term in Cr.P.C. Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints. Since the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression "bail" denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb "bailer" which means to "give" or "to deliver", although another view is that its derivation is from the Latin term "baiulare", meaning "to bear a burden". Bail is a conditional liberty. Strouds Judicial Dictionary (4th Kdn., 1971) spells out certain other details. It states: "... Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb "bailer" which means to "give" or "to deliver", although another view is that its derivation is from the Latin term "baiulare", meaning "to bear a burden". Bail is a conditional liberty. Strouds Judicial Dictionary (4th Kdn., 1971) spells out certain other details. It states: "... when a man is taken or arrested for felony, suspicion of felony, indicted of felony, or any such case, so that he is restrained of his liberty. And, being by law bailable, offereth surety to those which have authority to bail him, which sureties are bound for him to the Kings use in a certain sums of money, or body for body, that he shall appear before the justices of goal delivery at the next sessions, etc. Then upon the bonds of these sureties, as is aforesaid, he is bailed - that is to say, set at liberty until the day appointed for his appearance." Bail may thus be regarded as a mechanism whereby the State devolutes upon the community the function of securing the presence of the prisoners, and at the same time involves participation of the community in administration of justice. 7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz., the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras). 8. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras). 8. The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt." 29. When the under-trial prisoner is detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period till outcome of the case before the trial court. No doubt, the offence alleged against the applicant is a serious one that, by itself, should not deter this Court from enlarging the applicant on bail when the maximum number of witnesses has been produced before the trial court. Thus there is no serious likelihood of applicant, if released on bail, to interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. I do not see any good reason to detain the applicant in custody, that too, after long two and half years, and having regard to the fact of the case that maximum number of witnesses have deposed their statement before the trial court. 30. The principles, which the Court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by the Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , thus: "The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words reasonable grounds for believing instead of the evidence which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 31. It has been, time and again, stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308 , the Supreme Court has opined: "2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the applicant who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the applicant to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the applicant to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the applicant in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the applicant being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the applicant will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight." 32. It is trite law that while considering release of persons accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, general principles governing grant of bail and provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure relating to grant of bail, are undoubtedly required to be kept in view, and bail in such non-bailable offences may not be claimed as of right, and in the absence of any special circumstances warranting refusal of bail, the well-recognised principle that bail is the rule and refusal an exception, would always be a guiding factor for the courts while considering the grant or refusal of bail. The powers are concurrent; it does not mean that once plea of bail is rejected by Sessions Court, the High Court cannot exercise the powers. In the present case applicant is in the jail for last two and a half year. Detention and custody cannot be by way of punishment. In Criminal Jurisprudence the accused is presumed to be innocent until guilt is brought out. Applicant deserves to be admitted on bail, as such. 33. In the present case applicant is in the jail for last two and a half year. Detention and custody cannot be by way of punishment. In Criminal Jurisprudence the accused is presumed to be innocent until guilt is brought out. Applicant deserves to be admitted on bail, as such. 33. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case there is no justification for keeping the applicant in further incarceration by denying him bail. The applicant has already been in custody for two and a half year. The important witnesses have already crossed the witness box. 34. In the result, applicant has made out a case for bail. Applicant be released on bail on his furnishing two surety bonds, each in a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar and personal bond in the identical amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent Jail concerned, on the following conditions: 1. The applicant 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. 2. He shall not do anything directly or indirectly to influence the witnesses for the prosecution nor to tamper with the; evidence to be adduced against him. 3. The applicant shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case, for any reason due to unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he has to give intimation to the court and make a proper application for permission to be present through counsel. 4. The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, if not already surrendered before the court of Special Judge, Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar, within one week and if he is not holder of the same, that fact should be supported by an affidavit. 5. In case he has already surrendered the passport that fact should be supported by an affidavit. 6. The applicant shall stay at Srinagar. He shall not leave the District Srinagar without prior permission of this Court or the court of Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. 7. Liberty is given to the respondents to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling of the present order, if the applicant violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. 35. 6. The applicant shall stay at Srinagar. He shall not leave the District Srinagar without prior permission of this Court or the court of Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar. 7. Liberty is given to the respondents to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling of the present order, if the applicant violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. 35. Under these circumstances, the applicant is ordered to be released bail subject to the conditions mentioned herein above. 36. With the above directions, the application is disposed of.