JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present bail application is maintained by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail in case FIR No.RC0962017A0001/2017, dated 27.2.2017, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, CBI, District Shimla, H.P. 2. As per the petitioner, a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against him at Police Station, CBI, District Shimla, H.P. and he was arrested on 27.2.2017. As per the petitioner, the interrogation of the accused is complete and he is in the judicial custody. He has been falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent, so, he be released on bail. 3. Report filed by the C.B.I. As per the report, a case FIR No.RC0962017A0001 was registered in C.B.I., Shimla on 27.2.2017 against the accused/petitioner Veer Singh posted as Investigator in the Office of Director, MSME, Development Institute, Chambaghat, District Solan, H.P., on the basis of complaint dated 21.2.2017 of Ketan Parsana son of Thakarshi Bhai, Manager, M/s Dewlite Industries, Parwanoo, Solan, H.P. and the verification report dated 27.2.2017 of Krishan Chander, Inspector, CBI, Shimla. As per the complaint, the complainant has alleged demand of bribe by accused Brahm Prakash, petitioner and Veer Singh from him for doing his work. During verification, recording of conversation between the accused persons and the complainant was done and the demand of bribe of Rs.25,000/- was ascertained. It has further been alleged that said Krishan Chander, Inspector submitted his verification report dated 27.2.2017, in which he recommended for registration of regular case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused. After registration of case, a trap was laid by CBI on 28.2.2017 and 1.3.2017 and the accused Veer Singh was caught red handed while accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the complainant in the presence of independent witnesses near T-Point lights, Pinjore By-pass. It was claimed by the accused Veer Singh that he was accepting the amount on behalf of Sh. Brahm Prakash. Therefore, this amount was handed over to Brahm Prakash by Veer Singh on 01.3.2017 and accused/petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from accused Veer Singh. It was claimed by the accused Veer Singh that he was accepting the amount on behalf of Sh. Brahm Prakash. Therefore, this amount was handed over to Brahm Prakash by Veer Singh on 01.3.2017 and accused/petitioner was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.25,000/- from accused Veer Singh. They were arrested on 01.3.2017 at 10.30 PM and 10.40 PM respectively. 4. It has further been submitted that considering the nature and gravity and circumstances in which the offence has been committed, the position and status of the accused with respect to the complainant and the witnesses, there is every likelihood that the accused will flee from justice and can tamper with the prosecution evidence. Further, there is case that the accused has been caught red handed and the accused will be sentenced ultimately and there is no reason to grant him bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is innocent and now he is in judicial custody, no purpose is going to be served by keeping him behind the bars till the time he is adjudged guilty. He has further argued that the witnesses are official witnesses and the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence. Further, the petitioner will not flee from justice. The learned Assistant Solicitor General has vehemently argued that the petitioner has committed very heinous offence and he has been arrested after following due process of law and in all probabilities, the petitioner will be convicted and further if the petitioner is released on bail, he will tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, he has prayed that taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the bail application be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has argued that the rule is bail and not jail and till the time, the petitioner is not held guilty, he cannot be punished/convicted. He has relied upon the law, as reported in Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2011, titled Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 , decided on 23.11.2011. 7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. He has relied upon the law, as reported in Criminal Appeal No.2178 of 2011, titled Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 , decided on 23.11.2011. 7. To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. In the present case, the petitioner has submitted that he is a Government servant and is not in a position to flee from justice and further he is resident of the place and so, it can easily be inferred that he cannot flee from justice. This Court finds that petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a criminal case titled has held as under :- “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 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. 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 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 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. 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 un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 24. In the instant case, as we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is ‘the seriousness of the charge'. The offences alleged are economic offences which has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor : The other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather "recalibrating of the scales of justice." 25. The provisions of Cr.P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on Criminal Courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.” 8. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognised, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual.” 8. As discussed hereinabove, as the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence and also not in a position to flee from justice, the present is a fit case where the interest of justice demands that judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. So, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on bail, on his furnishing personal bond to the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bail is granted subject to the following conditions: (i). That the petitioner will join investigation of case as and when called for by the Investigating Officer in accordance with law. (ii). That the petitioner will not leave India without prior permission of the Court. (iii). That the petitioner will 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or Court. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.