ORDER : Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. 1. All these five bail applications by different accused-petitioners are originated from common FIR No. 269/2014 dated 4th of August 2014 registered at Police Station ACB, CPS, Jaipur (Outpost Jodhpur), therefore, all are heard together and disposed by common order. 2. In the FIR aforesaid, all the accused-petitioners, besides main accused Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit, are charged for offences punishable under Section 13 (1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 420, 119, 201 & 120B IPC. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (for short, 'University') initiated process of recruitment for 114 posts of Assistant Professor in various subjects by issuing Advertisement No. 74/2011-12 while prescribing requisite qualification for the post. Similarly, in some of the subjects, recruitment process is also initiated for Associate Professor and Professor prescribing requisite qualification and experience. It appears that some illegality/irregularity surfaced during selection process and therefore preliminary inquiry was conducted wherein it is revealed that eligibility criteria was not adhered to and in some cases aspirants for appointment who acquired qualification for appointment subsequent to the last date were allowed to compete for selection by accepting their documents posterior to the last date of submission of the application forms. That apart, some other infirmities were also noticed during the preliminary inquiry in the recruitment process including the act of favoritism and nepotism and selecting ineligible candidates as per UGC Guidelines while ignoring eligible candidates. Finally, above quoted FIR is registered against six incumbents, i.e., all the five petitioners and the Vice Chancellor of University Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit. 4. Feeling aggrieved by registration of FIR at the behest of Vice Chancellor Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit and two others, three separate criminal misc. petitions were filed before this Court and by order dated 30th of May 2016 the Court was pleased to allow those petitions and quash the FIR qua them. Subsequently against the order of this Court dated 30th of May 2016, State Government preferred SLP before the Supreme Court wherein at the threshold Supreme Court while staying the order of this Court passed following order on 3rd of October 2016. "Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed. Issue notice, returnable after four weeks. Subsequently against the order of this Court dated 30th of May 2016, State Government preferred SLP before the Supreme Court wherein at the threshold Supreme Court while staying the order of this Court passed following order on 3rd of October 2016. "Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed. Issue notice, returnable after four weeks. In the meantime, three shall be stay of operation of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Investigation may be completed, but without the leave of this Court, no further steps would be taken pursuant thereto in the meantime." 5. Later on during investigation, all the five accused-petitioners and the Vice Chancellor Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit were interrogated by the Anti Corruption Bureau and arrested on 15th of January 2017. This sort of situation prompted the Vice Chancellor to approach Supreme Court again for ventilating his grievances against the coercive action taken by the State in defiance of the Court's order. The Supreme Court, after hearing the Attorney General of India and the counsel representing the cause of Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit, issued necessary directions to release him immediately, subject to following conditions: "(1) The respondent shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (2) The respondent shall get his presence marked before the concerned officer-in-charge/S.H.O. of the Police Station twice in a month; (3) The respondent would produce his latest and full residential address in the concerned Trial Court/Police Station while obtaining bail and he shall not change his address without the prior permission of the Court. (4) If the respondent is holding a passport, he shall deposit the same in the concerned trial Court and if not, he should produce affidavit in that regard. (5) The respondent is directed to appear before the investigating authorities as and when called for and shall also cooperate with the investigation. In the event of necessity of any further conditions, depending on the attendant facts and circumstances, it would be open for the concerned trial Court to prescribe the same." 6. (5) The respondent is directed to appear before the investigating authorities as and when called for and shall also cooperate with the investigation. In the event of necessity of any further conditions, depending on the attendant facts and circumstances, it would be open for the concerned trial Court to prescribe the same." 6. As some of the petitioners are also arrayed as co-accused in the aforesaid FIR, at their behest also endeavor was made for craving the identical relief which was granted by the Supreme Court to the main accused vide order dated 16th of January 2017 by laying applications for impleadment. The prayer made by the accused-petitioners did not find favour of the Supreme Court and the Court was pleased to grant them liberty to approach appropriate Court for seeking bail by its order dated 17.01.2017. The order dated 17th of January 2017 reads as under: "Learned counsel appearing for the applicants handed over applications for impleadment, in the Court, which are taken on record. Applications for impleadment are allowed. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for the petitioner-State of Rajasthan and Mr. M.R. Calla and Mr. B.P. Patil, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ applicants. After hearing the counsel appearing for the respective parties and for the reasons stated in the applications, we do not intend to pass any order at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the applicants to approach the appropriate Court by filing application for bail, and the Court, would decide the same, on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the date of its filing, in accordance with the provisions of law. CRLMPs are disposed of on the afore-stated terms." 7. After order dated 17th of January 2017 of the Supreme Court, each accused-petitioner laid separate bail application before the Special Court, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') for seeking bail in the matter but the learned trial Court by order dated 19th of January 2017 rejected all the bail applications. This sort of situation has fructified all these bail applications before this Court. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mahesh Bora, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Jugal Kabra, submits that recruitment process is carried out as per amended Ordinance 317 of the University and therefore alleged offences against the petitioner are prima facie not made out. Mr. This sort of situation has fructified all these bail applications before this Court. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Mahesh Bora, appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Jugal Kabra, submits that recruitment process is carried out as per amended Ordinance 317 of the University and therefore alleged offences against the petitioner are prima facie not made out. Mr. Bora would contend that participation of Mr. Jugal Kabra in the Selection Committee as a Member of Syndicate and State Government nominee, has nowhere influenced the selection inasmuch allegations in this behalf are founded on wholly unsubstantiated and hearsay evidence. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that requisite ingredients to constitute a conspiracy much less criminal conspiracy are per se missing in absence of proof about physical manifestation of crime. Learned counsel argued that in absence of tangible evidence of criminal misconduct by the petitioner and his role in scrutiny of application forms offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as IPC are not made out against him. Arguing for the other accused petitioner Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, learned Senior Counsel submits that being a retired Professor and Dean, Faculty of Law, neither he has played any role in scrutiny of application forms nor participated in the selection, therefore, prima facie, his involvement in commission of alleged offence is under serious clouds. Learned counsel further submits that so called evidence collected by the investigating agency against petitioner Mr. Sharma is wholly unreliable so as to connect him for commission of alleged offences. Learned Senior Counsel has strenuously urged that the main accused Vice Chancellor Mr. Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit has already been released on bail by the Supreme Court and in view of subsequent development, i.e. filing of charge-sheet in the matter, both the petitioners are legitimately entitled for grant of bail. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh, appearing for Mr. Dungar Singh Khinchi, submits that in the FIR name of the petitioner did not find mention and it has surfaced during investigation on the basis of statement of accused Mr. S.P. Gupta, named in the FIR, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would contend that there is variance in statements of Mr. S.P. Gupta recorded under Section161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, prima facie, these statements are not inspiring confidence. Learned counsel has further argued that allegations made by Mr. S.P. Gupta, named in the FIR, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would contend that there is variance in statements of Mr. S.P. Gupta recorded under Section161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore, prima facie, these statements are not inspiring confidence. Learned counsel has further argued that allegations made by Mr. S.P. Gupta against the petitioner are per se unreliable in absence of call details. Lastly, learned counsel submits that filing of charge-sheet in the matter and in absence of any allegation of tampering with the witnesses against the petitioner, his bail plea merits acceptance. 10. Mr. Vinod Sharma, appearing for Professor Chundawat has reiterated the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Bora and Mr. Dhirendra Singh. Learned counsel further submits that being a public servant cognizance cannot be taken against the petitioner without prior sanction for prosecution and the process of obtaining sanction is likely to take considerable period is a plausible ground for enlarging him on bail. 11. Mr. Vineet Jain, appearing for Mr. Keshvan Embaran, submits that being Upper Division Clerk in the University, he has not played any role in the selection process and as such grant of bail to main accused Vice Chancellor by the Supreme Court is a plausible ground/reason for releasing him on bail. Asserting the status of the petitioner as a public servant, Mr. Jain would contend that in absence of sanction for prosecution cognizance regarding alleged offences is not permissible against him and the said process is likely to take considerable time, therefore, petitioner's bail plea merits favourable consideration. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that in the preliminary inquiry petitioner was not named as an accused and therefore in view of changed scenario when charge-sheet has been filed, he is liable to be released on bail. 12. Per contra, opposing the bail applications, learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. S.K. Vyas, assisted by learned Public Prosecutor Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, submits that in the backdrop of grave and serious allegations against the petitioners, they are not entitled for bail. Learned Addl. Advocate General, while referring to charge-sheet and the evidence collected during investigation, has urged that involvement of the petitioners in staid offences of corruption, forgery and criminal conspiracy is clearly apparent so as to decline their prayer for grant of bail. Learned Addl. Learned Addl. Advocate General, while referring to charge-sheet and the evidence collected during investigation, has urged that involvement of the petitioners in staid offences of corruption, forgery and criminal conspiracy is clearly apparent so as to decline their prayer for grant of bail. Learned Addl. Advocate General would contend that role of some of the petitioners in misleading the Chancellor of the University to facilitate amendment in Ordinance 317 dehors UGC guidelines has perpetrated big recruitment scam, therefore, their bail plea merits outright rejection. Placing heavy reliance on documentary evidence unearthed during investigation as vital piece of incriminating evidence against the petitioners, learned Addl. Advocate General has vehemently urged that in the interest of justice all bail applications may be thwarted. Learned Addl. Advocate General also argued that cases of all the petitioners are distinguishable from the Vice Chancellor. Harping on economic offences with which petitioners are charged, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that even in the matter of bail such offences need to be visited with a different approach in the backdrop of glaring facts of the instant case. Learned Addl. Advocate General has further argued that grant of bail to the petitioners is likely to influence the pending further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against many incumbents named in the charge-sheet. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that bail granted to Vice Chancellor by the Supreme Court is with stringent conditions, therefore, petitioners cannot claim any parity for grant of bail before this Court. Lastly, learned Addl. Advocate General has strenuously urged that the petitioners, if bailed out, may tamper with the witnesses causing serious prejudice to the prosecution. 13. Mr. O.P. Bhati, Complainant, appearing in person, has also reiterated all the submissions made by the learned Addl. Advocate General to oppose the bail plea of all the accused-petitioners. 14. I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused the charge-sheet and the entire record of the investigation produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor. 15. Upon recapitulation of the facts of the case, it clearly emerges out that prosecution has set up a case of criminal misconduct, corruption, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document etc. Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor. 15. Upon recapitulation of the facts of the case, it clearly emerges out that prosecution has set up a case of criminal misconduct, corruption, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document etc. and criminal conspiracy against the petitioners but at this stage while considering their bail plea it is not desirable for this Court to embark on the nature of offences and evidence collected during investigation. The concern of the Court, at this stage, is to examine reasonable ground for releasing an accused on bail as envisaged under Section 437 Cr.P.C. While it is true that petitioners are also charged for economic offence but then at the stage of considering their bail plea the gravity and magnitude of the offence is required to be examined with a pragmatic approach and not pedantic and purely idealistic approach. If it comes to the fore that offence is grave enough to affect the economy of the Country as a whole and thereby posing threat to the financial health of the Country, bail plea of the accused has to be thwarted. In case no such situation is emerging then fundamental right of an individual enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed by keeping accused in custody, more particularly, after completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet. Although in the instant case prosecution has collected evidence to prove charges of corruption and other offences, but prima facie it is rather difficult to comprehend that the alleged omissions and commissions of the accused-petitioners have resulted in huge loss of public fund affecting the economy of the Country as a whole. Moreover, despite there being allegations of bribery or illegal gratification the evidence collected in this behalf during investigation is prima facie not inculpatory at this stage to dissuade this Court from exercising discretion in favour of accused-petitioners. Moreover, despite there being allegations of bribery or illegal gratification the evidence collected in this behalf during investigation is prima facie not inculpatory at this stage to dissuade this Court from exercising discretion in favour of accused-petitioners. Some of the mitigating circumstances are also tilting the equity in favour of accused-petitioners for exercising judicial discretion in affirmative manner to farther fundamental right of life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, viz., (i) custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioners, (ii) factum of their detention/remaining in custody since 15th of January 2017, (iii) awaiting sanction for prosecution against accused-petitioners Dariyav Singh Chundawat and Keshvan Embaran, (iv) absence of prima facie tangible evidence against the petitioners to influence or tamper with witnesses, (v) completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet. A very vital fact that the main accused Vice Chancellor Bhanwar Singh Rajpurohit is released on bail by the Supreme Court cannot lose sight of the Court for the simple reason that prima facie criminal delinquency of the accused petitioners is not of high amplitude vis-à-vis Vice Chancellor. Undeniably, being in helm of affairs of the University, Vice Chancellor was responsible for maintaining sanctity of recruitment process and as Chairman of the Selection Committee his role in the entire selection process was more significant and important in comparison to the accused-petitioners. By no stretch of imagination, the alleged offences of the accused-petitioners are grave and serious than Vice Chancellor of the University. Therefore, while refraining from making any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to take into consideration all these mitigating factors for favourable disposition qua the petitioners while considering/deciding their bail plea. 16. Accordingly, all these bail applications are allowed and the accused-petitioners viz., (1) Dungar Singh Khinchi S/o. Late Sh. Badan Singh Khinchi, (2) Jugal Kabra S/o. Late Shri Hansraj Kabra, (3) Dariyav Singh Chundawat S/o. Late Shri Hari Singh, (4) Shyamsunder Sharma S/o. Shri Tejraj and (5) Keshvan Embaran S/o. Sh. Ishwar Embaran are ordered to be released on bail subject to following conditions: "(1) Each of the petitioners shall furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rupees 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (2) The petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so. (2) The petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so. (3) The petitioners shall not change their residential address without the prior permission of the learned trial Court. (4) The petitioners shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the learned trial Court. (5) The petitioners shall not make any endeavour to influence the prosecution witnesses and to cooperate the investigating agency during further investigation in vogue against some of the incumbents named in the charge-sheet. If any necessity is felt by the learned trial Court for imposing any other condition, depending on the attending facts and circumstances, it shall be at liberty to prescribe the same."