JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. This is a subsequent bail application filed by petitioner Amit Jha on the strength of observations made by the apex court in Tarun Tejpal vs. State of Goa, (2015) 14 Supreme Court 481. This court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire judgment as under: “1 Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis. 2. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the petitioner be released on bail subject to the following conditions: (a) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the Court or to any other authority. (b) The petitioner shall remain present before the Court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the Court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate Court and also to the investigating agency and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (c) The petitioner will dispute his identity as the accused in the case. (d) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, he is not a holder of the same, he shall swear to an affidavit to that effect. (e) We reserve liberty to the respondents to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. (f) The petitioner shall participate in the trial before the Trial Court. (g) The petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments of the trial. 3. We now direct the learned Trial Judge to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight months' time from today since the investigating agency has already filed its charge-sheet on 17-2-2014. 4. In order to facilitate the respondents to make an appropriate application, we intend to keep the matter on board. Ordered accordingly.” 2. It stands clarified that reliance is laid only on the aforesaid decision and not on the decisions referred to and relied upon in the bail application. 4. In order to facilitate the respondents to make an appropriate application, we intend to keep the matter on board. Ordered accordingly.” 2. It stands clarified that reliance is laid only on the aforesaid decision and not on the decisions referred to and relied upon in the bail application. The said decision is based on the given facts and circumstances not laying down any specific principle of law. 3. It is not in dispute that earlier bail application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by this court vide judgment dated 1.4.2017, passed in Cr.MPM No. 309 of 2017, titled as Amit Jha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. While dismissing the said bail application, this Court took into account the principles laid by the apex Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Vinod Bhandari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502 . 4. In relation to FIR No.41/2015, dated 2.3.2015, registered at Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, accused-petitioner stands charged for having committed offences, punishable under Sections 364A, 420, 342, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 66-D of the IT Act, 2000. Such FIR came to be registered on the basis of complaint made by Arvind Singh that on the pretext of getting employment in a foreign country, present petitioner Amit Jha along with his co-accused Tarsem Singh, made him travel to Delhi, from where he was taken to Bagdogra and forced to part with a sum of Rs.22 lakhs. Not only he stood duped, as the promises turned out to be false, but at Bagdogra, kept in confinement and physically assaulted. 5. While deciding the earlier application, this Court took into account the allegations made by the complainant including the fact that the petitioner is a resident of Orissa and had had unscrupulously made the complainant part with valuable security on the pretext of getting him employed in a foreign country. 6. The prosecution has vehemently opposed the present bail application, inter alia, expressing likelihood of the accused fleeing away from the jurisdiction of this court and even from this country and, detention, pre-emptive in nature, is necessary till such time the matter is eventually decided by the Court below. 7. While dismissing the earlier application (Cr.MPM No. 309 of 2017), this Court has observed as under: “6. 7. While dismissing the earlier application (Cr.MPM No. 309 of 2017), this Court has observed as under: “6. One finds the principle of law, in a case of grant of bail pertaining to non-bailable offence, to be reiterated by the apex Court in a more recent judgment rendered in Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502 , which can be crystallized thus – (a) lawful detention is not violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India, (b) detention is preventive and not punitive, (c) at a pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence, (d) the object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure availability for facing trial and receive sentence, if any, which may be passed eventually, (e) seriousness of the allegations or availability of material in support thereof, (f) delay in commencement and conclusion of trial, (g) if trial is not likely to be concluded within a reasonable time, then accused is not to be kept in custody for indefinite period, (h) failure on the part of prosecution to prima facie establish the case, (i) even where prosecution has been able to prima facie establish its case, for reasons to be recorded, Court can still grant bail, (j) rejection of an application would not preclude the accused from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail. But however, circumstances prevalent are required to be examined, (k) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing away, after release on bail, (l) character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (m) likelihood of the offence being repeated, (n) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, and, amongst others, (o) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. The only change in the circumstances, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is completion of prosecution evidence. Now this fact alone, by itself, cannot be a circumstance warranting change of view by the Court. It be only observed that the trial Court has fixed the date for recording statement of the accused within this month and if the accused do not lead any evidence, then the matter, in all eventuality, is likely to be decided in the next two months. It be only observed that the trial Court has fixed the date for recording statement of the accused within this month and if the accused do not lead any evidence, then the matter, in all eventuality, is likely to be decided in the next two months. Simply because the petitioner has been behind bars for a considerable period of time, even that fact would not be a reason, sufficient enough entitling him for grant of bail. What is required to be considered is the entire attending facts and circumstances, which in the instant case, this Court finds none, to be in his favour, at this stage. In fact, the trial stood expedited almost on day to day basis. Prosecution has not delayed the case. Allegations of conspiracy, particularly the role prescribed to the present accused needs to be determined by the trial Court. As such this Court finds no reason in allowing the bail application. 9. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, present application is dismissed. 10. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made herein above. Application stands disposed of, so also pending application, if any