JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. On being arrested in connection with FIR No.269/2014 of Police Station ACB, Jodhpur for offences under Section 13 (1)(c) (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 477A, 420, 119, 201 & 120B IPC accused-petitioner has filed this post-arrest bail application. Earlier petitioner applied for bail before the Special Court of Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court') but that effort proved abortive and the learned trial Court rejected his bail application on 23rd of January 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not a member of Scrutiny Committee and his status in the Selection Committee was of Second Subject Expert, therefore, prima facie his culpability for the aforesaid offences is seriously questionable. Learned counsel would contend that Mr. S.P. Gupta, who was initially named as an accused in the FIR, has falsely implicated petitioner in the case inasmuch as he himself was a Member of the Selection Committee as Professor & Head of the Sociology Department. Learned counsel further submits that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that no specific role is assigned to the petitioner in commission of any offence. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel that main accused Vice Chancellor has been released on bail by the Supreme Court and five other accused persons have been released by this Court, is a significant fact for releasing the petitioner on bail who is in custody since 21.01.2017. 3. Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that prima facie culpability of the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is clearly apparent inasmuch he was responsible for selection of two ineligible candidates viz., Rajendra Singh Khinchi and Rishab Gehlot. Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that in presence of the petitioner a Select-list was torn out by other accused persons but he kept mum, is sufficient to establish role of the petitioner in criminal delinquency of grave and serious nature. While relying on the statement of Professor S.P. Gupta under Section 164 Cr. P.C., learned Addl. Advocate General submits that statements are clear and unequivocal to establish direct and explicit nexus of the petitioner with the attributed offences. Lastly, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that further investigation against petitioner is still in vogue under Section 173(8) Cr. While relying on the statement of Professor S.P. Gupta under Section 164 Cr. P.C., learned Addl. Advocate General submits that statements are clear and unequivocal to establish direct and explicit nexus of the petitioner with the attributed offences. Lastly, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that further investigation against petitioner is still in vogue under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C., therefore, at this stage, he is not entitled for bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Advocate General perused the impugned FIR and some of the documents brought to my notice by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 5. While it is true that prosecution has slapped serious charges against the petitioner of criminal misconduct, corruption, forgery of valuable security, forgery for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document etc. and criminal conspiracy but at the stage of consideration of bail plea of the petitioner it is not desirable for this Court to embark on the nature of offences and evidence collected during investigation. Primarily, at this stage, concern of the Court is to examine reasonable ground for releasing the accused on bail as envisaged under Section 437 Cr. P.C. In absence of any material proof about allegations of bribery or illegal gratification and sans proof about gravity of offence to affect economy of the Country as a whole, in my considered opinion, it would not be proper to thwart the bail plea of petitioner at the cost of sacrificing fundamental right of life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, there are certain other mitigating circumstances viz., (1) main accused Vice Chancellor has been granted bail by the Supreme Court, (2) five other accused persons, i.e. (i) Dungar Singh Khinchi S/o Late Sh. Badan Singh Khinchi, (ii) Jugal Kabra S/o Late Shri Hansraj Kabra, (iii) Dariyav Singh Chundawat S/o Late Shri Hari Singh, (iv) Shyamsunder Sharma S/o Shri Tejraj, and (v) Keshvan Embaran S/o Sh. Ishwar Embaran are enlarged on bail by this Court today, (3) absence of prima facie tangible evidence against petitioner to influence or tamper with witness, and (4) a very vital fact that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2017 for persuading the Court to accept bail application of the petitioner. Therefore, I feel inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Therefore, I feel inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the accused-petitioner Dr. Pradeep Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Swaroop Singh Chundawat is ordered to be released on bail subject to following conditions: (1) The petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave the Country without prior permission of the trial Court. (3) The petitioner shall get his presence marked before the concerned Officer-in-charge/SHO of the Police Station twice in a month. He is also directed to appear before the investigating authorities as and when called for and shall also cooperate with the investigation. (4) The petitioners shall not change his residential address without prior permission of the trial Court. (5) In case charge-sheet is filed against the petitioner, he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when called upon to do so and shall not influence the prosecution witnesses. 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. Bail allowed on above conditions.