ORDER : 1. All above bail applications are taken together and disposed of by this common order as it relates to the same Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016. 2. The bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been preferred on behalf of the accused persons, namely, Dipak Kanikar, Kunal Das, Dilip Kumar Kalita, Badrul Islam Choudhury, Sibbira Imran, Sunayana Aidow, Rumi Saikia, Gitali Doley and Sudipta Goswami Bhattacharjee, in connection with Dibrugarh P.S. Case No. 936/2016 (G. R. Case No. 3149/2016, subsequently registered as Special Case No. 02/2017) under Section 7/13 (1) (b) (2) read with Section 120 B/420/463/471/471(A)/201 IPC, pending before the learned Special Judge, Guwahati, Assam. 3. Be it mentioned that on different occasions bail petitions were moved before this Court which were rejected by this Court and now presently bail is sought for primarily on the ground of length of detention, and that the Charge-Sheet has been filed in the meantime followed by several numbers of supplementary Charge-Sheet. 4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsels for all applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Assam at length. 5. As the present set of bail applications are successive one, the learned P.P. was directed to submit the Status Report as well as the Case Diary which was prepared subsequent to the earlier one. Accordingly, the same is placed before this Court and perused. 6. To recapitulate the facts of the case, it can be mentioned here that in pursuant to the FIR dated 27.10.2016, filed by one Dr. Anusmita Gogoi, that a person, namely, Sh. Nabakanta Patir, demanded her Rs. 10,00,000/-for her recruitment to the post of Dental Surgeon conducted by Assam Public Service Commission, the aforesaid case was registered and during the course of investigation it was surfaced that the Chairman, Assam Public Service Commission, along with his associates collected huge amount of money from the prospective candidates for recruitment to the various post of Assam Civil Service and Allied Service in the APSC Examination, 2013. Investigation reveals that the Chairman, Sh. Rakesh Pal, by manipulating the answer script of the candidates, appointed various candidates against huge payment of money and it is alleged that present applicants got appointed to the respective posts of Civil Service in the said process against payment of money and tempering the answer script. 7. Investigation reveals that the Chairman, Sh. Rakesh Pal, by manipulating the answer script of the candidates, appointed various candidates against huge payment of money and it is alleged that present applicants got appointed to the respective posts of Civil Service in the said process against payment of money and tempering the answer script. 7. A vigorous investigation has been made to unearth the money trail and the connected documents leading to recovery of manipulated answer script from strong room/confidential examination hall of APSC. On examination of those answer script by expert, it was found to be forged. On the basis of the investigation and the expert opinion, the Charge-Sheet has been filed against the accused applicants and other group of persons. The first Charge-Sheet was submitted against the Chairman and employees of APSC including some agent on 24.01.2017, and second and third Charge-Sheet was submitted against the set of officers (Officers appointed in Civil Service) arrested in connection with the case on 28.07.2018 and 04.01.2018 and thereafter, as many as 8 (eight) supplementary Charge-Sheet have been filed till date. 8. In the present case, the above accused applicants, Kunal Das, Dipak Kalita, Sabbira Imran, Dilip Kumar Kalita were arrested on 08.11.2017, Sudipta Goswami Bhattacharjee was arrested on 09.11.2017, Badrul Islam Choudhury, Sunayana Aidew and Geetali Doley were arrested on 10.11.2017 and Rumi Saikia was arrested on 21.11.2017. It is stated that two of the female accused, namely, Geetali Rabha and Sunayana Aidew have minor children aged about 2 years and 6 years. 9. Referring to the earlier order passed by this Court in the bail application dated 19.02.2018, it has been contended that despite specific direction to the IO given by this Court to submit the supplementary Charge-Sheet within a outer limit of 2 (two) months along with prosecution sanction so that the case can proceed for trial (as the Charge-Sheet has already been submitted), and although IO has submitted supplementary Charge-Sheet but with permission of the Trial Court, several other supplementary Charge-Sheet, totally 8 (eight) in number has been filed by the IO and no any sanction has been obtained till filing of the present bail application neither cognizance has been taken yet. Although, it is a settled position that for the purpose of filing supplementary Charge-Sheet, permission of the Court is not required and the same can be continued even after the commencement of the Trial but in this Case, filing of supplementary Charge-Sheet is continuing and the process of trial not yet begun for the reason. Thus, it has been contended that the IO has not complied with the specific direction passed by this Court. It has been urged before this Court by the petitioner side that even after filing of several Charge-Sheet, no further evidence is collected against the accused persons. Only on the last supplementary Charge-Sheet dated 18.09.2017, some indication has been given that accused persons have abetted the other two recently arrested accused persons to manage for bail by influencing the Trial Court Judge, which is not at all clear and persuasive terms, indicating manner in which they indulge with such abetment. It contends that all the accused persons are behind the bar since the day of their arrest, so they are not in a position to involve with such allegations. 10. Initiating the argument, the learned senior counsel, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya has vehemently submitted that in the present case as the Charge-Sheet and supplementary Charge-Sheet have been submitted, there is no need to obtain status report. It contends that all the accused applicants in this case have good educational qualifications, social background having root in the society and they have family to maintain, children to look after and at this verge of completion of investigation as against the present accused applicants, their release on bail is necessary and their release will no way hamper the further investigation of the case as all relevant document has been seized. Even for the sake of supplementary Charge-Sheet, one cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period. Regarding the merit of the case, it has been submitted that only on the basis of expert opinion on handwriting in the answer script, one cannot be held guilty of offence alleged and it is not an economic offence as alleged by the prosecution. 11. On the principles of consideration for granting or refusing bail under Cr. P.C., the observation of the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer as held in 1978 1 SCC 240 , Gudikanti Narasinhulu & Ors. Vs. 11. On the principles of consideration for granting or refusing bail under Cr. P.C., the observation of the Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer as held in 1978 1 SCC 240 , Gudikanti Narasinhulu & Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh and 1980 1 SCC 700 , Nineon Sangma & Ors. Vs. Home Secretary Govt. of Meghalaya (full bench), has been quoted in vehemence by the learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharyya. Some relevant observation is extracted below – “Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused, is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great trust exercisable, not casually but judicially with liably concerned for the individual and the community. To glamorize impressionistic orders as discretionary may, on occasions make a litigative gamble decisive of fundamental rights. After all personal liberty of an accused of convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure establish by law, the last four words of Article 21 are the life of that human right.” As regard the judicial discretion in the context of bail, it holds – “The judge is not to innovate at pleasure is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuant of his own ideal of beauty of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to ‘the primordial necessity of order in the social life’. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains. Even so it is useful to notice the words in terms of Lord Camden that the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants : it is always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains. Even so it is useful to notice the words in terms of Lord Camden that the discretion of a Judge is the law of tyrants : it is always unknown, it is different in different men; it is casual, and depends upon constitution, temper and passion. In the best, it is oftentimes caprice; in the worst, it is every vice, folly and passion to which human nature is liable.” In words of lords Russel CJ – “It cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment but that the requirement as bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.” In the context of bail, Court required to enquire into the antecedent of a man applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record which may suggest that there is likelihood to commit serious offences on bail. It make sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody and if the public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted. Equally important is the deplorable condition in the jails across the country. The few other weighty factor deserve reference, all deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along with anti criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimized. Hon’ble Justice Iyer speaks about the under trial prisoners that detention of large number of persons for a considerable period without trial violates Article 21 (reference 1980, Nimeon Supra), it says criminal justice back down at a point when expeditious trial is not attempted while the affected parties are languishing in jail. It is unfortunate that there should be considerable delay in investigation by the police in utter disregard of the fact that a citizen has been deprived of his freedom on the ground that he is an accused of an offence. Such a course urges on the wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under the constitution especially under Article 21. The Criminal Procedure Code 167, 209, 309 has emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigation of the trial.” 12. Such a course urges on the wholesale breach of human rights guaranteed under the constitution especially under Article 21. The Criminal Procedure Code 167, 209, 309 has emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases including investigation of the trial.” 12. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2012 SCC 40 , where the same principle have been reiterated that when the under trial prisoners detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of Constitution is violated. Every person detained or arrested is entitled for speedy trial, and question to be asked whether same is possible in the given case. Deprivation of liberty must be considered as a punishment unless it can be required to ensure that the accused has stand his trial when called upon, the Court owe more than the 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. Seriousness of the charge is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while considering the bail applications but it is not only the test or the factor, the other factor that also required to be taken note of the punishment that could be imprisoned after the trial and conviction both under IPC and PC Act. Otherwise, if former is the only test, the Court would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather recalibrating the scales of justice. 13. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions and referring to the facts of the case and punishment that can ultimately inflicted the accused under the act (i.e. the punishment upto 2 years, 5 years and maximum upto 10 years), it has been urged by the learned counsel, Mr. Bhattacharyya that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions is applicable to the present case in hand in view of long detention (317 days) and the accused applicant has no other criminal antecedent or anything to hold that he will flee from the justice or otherwise hamper the trial, accused should release on bail to prepare his defence to face the trial in due manner with conditions, if any. 14. Adopting the line of argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, same contention has also been raised by the learned counsel Mr. A. M. Bora, appearing on behalf of accused persons, namely, Rumi Saikia, Geetali Doley, Sabbira Imran and Sunayana Aidew. 14. Adopting the line of argument of Mr. Bhattacharyya, same contention has also been raised by the learned counsel Mr. A. M. Bora, appearing on behalf of accused persons, namely, Rumi Saikia, Geetali Doley, Sabbira Imran and Sunayana Aidew. Relying on the decisions of Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 2 SCC 322 ; Laloo Prashad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2002 9 SCC 302; Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2008 3 SCC 775 ; Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Vs. CBI & Anr, 2012 4 SCC 134 ; Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, 2014 4 SCC 626 ; Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta Vs. CBI, 2017 5 SCC 218 , the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in terms of the Section 173 (8), police has ample power to go for further investigation in respect of the offence, even after a report under Section 173 (2) and after taking cognizance of the offence by the Court on the basis of earlier report but that does not indicate that the same can be continued by keeping the person in detentions arrested earlier. Pointing towards the several Charge-Sheet that has been filed by the IO in this case, it has been submitted that there is nothing against the present accused persons in the supplementary Charge-Sheet despite continued investigation. A vague allegation has been brought against the accused persons in last supplementary Charge-Sheet that they abeted the other two accused persons, recently arrested, to procure the bail by managing the Trial Court. Attention has been drawn to all the supplementary Charge-Sheet filed as well as the last one, where such vague allegation has been made which I have gone through. 15. It has been strenuously contended by learned counsel Mr. Bora that the Charge-Sheet does not disclose anything except the fact that the handwriting expert has given opinion that the answer script of the applicants are fake which are not printed in the government press as per rule of examination of APSC, which clearly reveals criminal conspiracy between the APSC Chairman, members and candidates for securing job in Government of Assam, in lieu of cash not on merit. There is no other revealment about illegal payment etc. except some apprehension, in any of the Charge-Sheet, so the prosecution cannot raise anything more except what has been held in the Charge-Sheet. There is no other revealment about illegal payment etc. except some apprehension, in any of the Charge-Sheet, so the prosecution cannot raise anything more except what has been held in the Charge-Sheet. Relying on the decision of 1991 3 SCC 655, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India & Ors, vide para 76 of the judgment, it has been submitted that the Charge-Sheet herein has not been filed in due conformity as has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court (full bench). It has been held that Charge-Sheet must contain the following criteria- (a) Names of the parties, (b) Nature of information, (c) Names of the person who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case, (d) Whether any offence appears to have been committed and if so by whom, (e) Whether accused has been arrested, (f) Whether he has been released on bail bond and if so whether with or without sureties and, (g) Whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170 Cr.P.C. 16. The statutory requirement of the report under Section 173 (2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. It contends the very necessary information has not been furnished in the Charge-Sheet, as indicated above. 17. The last supplementary Charge-Sheet that has been filed is stated to be false and fabricated as no specific disclosure of name of judicial officer and his wife to whom money was offered or the name of guardians/persons from whom money was collected neither any money was recovered. Furthermore, as the accused applicants were in custody at the time of such occurrence as alleged, there cannot be any abetment on their part. Deliberating all detail of the aspect and the guideline to be considered at the time of granting bail, as has been referred above, it has been submitted that the accused applicants were under long detention and there is no certainity as to when the trial will begin or the investigation will complete and in such a scenario, further detention of the accused applicants will be violating of Article 21 of the Constitution as has been held in Dipak Subashchandra, 2012 (supra), Sanjay Chanda, 2012 (supra) and since also the other decisions [1978, Gudikanti (supra) and 1980, Nimeon (supra)] referred by learned senior counsel, Mr. Bhattacharyya (already discussed). Bhattacharyya (already discussed). The accused persons have no earlier criminal antecedents and they are ready to face the trial and their release is also required to prepare defence. Only on the ground of plea of continuing investigation for an around one year, the accused applicant would not be deprived for their statutory right to enlarge on bail. 18. Mr. A. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Kunal Das, also in similar line has argued before this Court that the accused applicant had a brilliant academic carrier, who had studied BBA and MBA from Bangalore, and he has also no any earlier criminal antecedent prior to this case although he has subsequently now arrested in connection with other case while in custody. In view of the fact that the investigating officer has got enough time to investigate the matter and in fact the investigation has been completed by this time and Charge-Sheet has been submitted but same is still stated to be continuing in the nature of further investigation. It has been pointed out however, that the said further investigation is carried out not in respect of present accused applicants but for recovery of complicity of any other officers etc. In the tune of other learned counsels, Mr. Bhuyan has vehemently contended that the last supplementary Charge-Sheet which has been filed against two accused persons has also baselessly alleged that the accused persons abetted the said two accused persons who were outside the jail to procure money to obtain the bail. Further detention on the basis of such vague allegations is not at all lawful. 19. It has been contended that it is not a case of heinous crime committed by accused nor there is any criminal antecedent so as to refuse bail. The factual background of the case is quite different than that of a serious criminal offences like honour killing, crime against woman and children and other serious cases where the court may refuse to consider such successive bail application on the ground of gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of 2013 7 SCC 439 , Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI; 2014 (16) SCC 508 , Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr; (2017) 5 SCC 406 , Viru Prakshak a Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of 2013 7 SCC 439 , Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI; 2014 (16) SCC 508 , Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr; (2017) 5 SCC 406 , Viru Prakshak a Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka. In the above referred cases, basically the bail has been refused considering the heinous nature of crime when the criteria of long detention may not be of paramount consideration. Mr. Bhuyan, with firm vehemence has distinguished the present case from the other cases by Bihar topper scam, 2017 (13) SCC 751 , where the bail has been refused to the accused who was the kingpin of the offence, which has altogether a different background where huge recovery of money, land documents etc. recovered from the kingpin of the case which was discussed by this Court on earlier occasion also. But the status of the present case is totally different than that of the Bihar scam case and the applicant is a beneficiary. 20. The learned counsel has also urged to consider the bail prayer on the ground of parity. Referring to the order passed by the other co-ordinate bench, it has been submitted that bail has been granted to some other accused person named in the FIR, namely, Nabakanta Patir (on default bail after long detention, after releasing the prime accused, Rakesh Paul, on default bail). Similarly, other accused persons Basanta Kumar Doley, Pabitra Koibtra and Bhaskar Chandra Deva Sarma, are also granted bail after considering long detention. It contends that similar benefit should be extended to the present accused persons. 21. The submission of the learned counsel, Mr. S. K. Talukdar, appearing on behalf of accused Sudipta Goswami Bhattacharjee and Badrul Islam Choudhury is similar that of the other counsels. It is contended that each bail application has been objected by prosecution in the name of filing supplementary Charge-Sheet and further investigation, whereas, after filing the main Charge-Sheet far back on 04.01.2018, the complicity of the accused persons is not made out in the subsequent supplementary Charge-Sheets which were filed against different set of accused persons and the further investigation is carried on by violating the direction given by this Court in earlier bail application, dated 19.02.2018. There is similar allegation against all the accused persons that they entered into conspiracy with the Chairman of APSC and got appointed to their respective posts by manipulating answer script, but there is no any whisper in the Charge-Sheet about the illegal money transaction. However, there is no legal impediment on the part of IO for carrying further investigation as per the mandate of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., but same cannot be at the cost of the accused persons by keeping them for indefinite detention. 22. Over and above, the ground of ill health of the accused person, Smt. Sudipta Goswami Bhattacharjee, has also been raised who has sustained fracture injury while inside the jail and is suffering from severe spondylosis and her right leg was fractured rendering her incapable of moving without the help of other. The treatment made in the jail is not sufficient and she needs further advance treatment of which can be possible if she is released on bail. They are also ready to face the trail. 23. The line of argument of the learned counsel, Mr. F Khan, appearing on behalf of accused Dilip Kalita is also similar to that of other counsels. It has been vehemently urged that a person cannot be condemned prior to conviction by keeping such persons under long detention. Another limb of argument of the learned counsel, Mr. Khan, is that the offence under Section 7, 12, 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable to the accused persons because at the time of commission of offence, if any, they were not public servants. Moreover, the maximum punishment of the offence under Section 13 of P.C. Act is 10 years after amendment in the year 2014 otherwise the offence was punishable upto 7 years prior to amendment and the accused persons are under the detention around 11 months and the IO has got ample opportunity to complete the investigation. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Sanjay Chanda (supra) which is applicable in the background of the present cases. Referring to the decision of Nimmagadda Prashad Vs. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Sanjay Chanda (supra) which is applicable in the background of the present cases. Referring to the decision of Nimmagadda Prashad Vs. CBI, 2013 7 SCC 466 , it has been submitted that bail was refused by the Hon’ble Apex Court in said case in view of serious economic offences affecting public money and property and allowed time for filing Charge-Sheet, on the prayer of the IO that large number of witnesses are yet to be examined and large number of documents are required to be collected. However, assurance was given by the CBI to complete the investigation within a definite period but the same ratio is not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case is quite different than that of case of Nimmagadda Prashad. As in the present case, no time definite timeline has been assured by the IO to conclude its continued further investigation neither it is a case of obtaining gratification of public money and property on the part of the accused applicants. So, the present case is not of an economic offence so far as relates to the present accused persons who alleged to have been appointed to the post of Civil Service by way of illegal means as per the Charge-Sheet filed against the accused persons. A common submission has been made for on behalf of the accused applicants that all the accused persons are already removed from service and that are not in a position to influence the further investigation. They are being local resident of Guwahati having family and children, will not flee from justice, rather, they will face the trial and ready to cooperate with investigation, if so necessary. 24. Vehemently opposing the bail applications, the learned P. P., Mr. P. P. Baruah has submitted that as the case relates to an economic offence and the accused persons have obtained the job by adopting unlawful means in collusion with the Chairman of the APSC, Rakesh Kumar Paul and there is sufficient evidence against them and they are required to be kept in judicial custody for further corroboration and collection of material evidence, documents otherwise they may hamper and temper with the evidence. They are also required to be kept in judicial custody to find out the money trail of money exchanging hands etc. They are also required to be kept in judicial custody to find out the money trail of money exchanging hands etc. Further, joint interrogation in jail is required to find out the modus operandi of the whole racket of illegal appointments run by the arrested accused Rakesh Paul and his associates. Lastly, it is submitted that the accused persons have entered into conspiracy to influencing the Trial Court and the accused Kunal Das and Vikash Pinscha has tried to threaten the informant. 25. According to the learned P.P., the case relate to an economic offence and the accused to such offences has to be dealt with in adequate manner only on the ground of delay of trial and detention, the bail cannot be considered in such economic offences which is against the state and such a detention cannot be questioned as violative of Article 21 of the constitution as same is authorized by law, as has been held in 2005 (2) SCC 42 , Kaylan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. Such successive bail application cannot be entertained only on the longer period of detention, in view of the gravity of the offence and the complicity of the accused as has been mentioned above. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of 2013 7 SCC 439 , State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Amit Kumar; 2008 (3) SCC 775 , Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.; 2014 (16) SCC 508 , Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.; 2017 5 SCC 406 , Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. 26. Due consideration has been given to the rival contention of both the parties and gone through the Case Diary as well as the Status Report. Also appreciated the observations rendered in the decisions relied by both the parties. The decision referred and relied by the prosecution basically relates to the heinous offences like that of brutal murder, honour killing, offence relating to women and child and such bail application have been rejected in view of serious criminal antecedent of the accused. Further, as the case relates to serious economic offence having great magnitude, bail was denied, for giving opportunity to the prosecution to submit Charge-Sheet framing time limit. Further, as the case relates to serious economic offence having great magnitude, bail was denied, for giving opportunity to the prosecution to submit Charge-Sheet framing time limit. But the case hand, the Charge-Sheet has already been filed and subsequent thereto, 8 (eight) supplementary Charge-Sheet has also been filed, contemplating to file another Charge-Sheet without defining any time limit. The present case also be differentiated from the other cases as the present accused persons have no other criminal antecedents and it is not a heinous offence. The guideline set forth for consideration of bail since the days of the 1980s till date is almost same that while looking the bail application what is required to be looked in case is (i) Whether there is any prima facie case or reasonable ground to believe that the accused has committed the offence, (ii) Nature and gravity of the charge, (iii) Severity of the punishment in the event of conviction, (iv) Danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, (v) Character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused, (vi) Likelihood of the offence being repeated, (vii) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, (viii) Danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 27. Looking at the background of the accused persons having good educational background, no earlier criminal antecedent, position in the society having family with parents and also the fact that the accused person has already been removed from the service, there appears no likelihood of being fleeing away and repeated the offence. The nature of gravity of the charge and the punishment thereof is to the extent of maximum 10 (ten) years, tampering of evidence is a mere apprehension without being proper evidence. The accused persons also undertook to face the trial and to cooperate the investigation as directed. 28. As the main emphasis of prosecution raising bail objection on the ground of ongoing further investigation, the prosecution was directed to submit Status Report to disclose the updates for a just decision. Accordingly, a Status Report and the updated Case Diary is being produced. On close scrutiny of all, it goes to show that since after registration of the case on similar allegations, several other accused persons have been arrested and no specific additional evidence has been surfaced against the present accused persons in the supplementary Charge-Sheets. Accordingly, a Status Report and the updated Case Diary is being produced. On close scrutiny of all, it goes to show that since after registration of the case on similar allegations, several other accused persons have been arrested and no specific additional evidence has been surfaced against the present accused persons in the supplementary Charge-Sheets. The last supplementary Charge-Sheet, dated 18.09.2018, has been filed against two separate accused persons who alleged to have collected money to offer the presiding Officer of the Trial Court with a view to procure bail by influencing the Court. General allegation has been made that all accused persons have abeted those two persons recently arrested. 29. On perusal of the Case Diary, it reveals that the same aspect is also not clear enough to implicate all the accused persons behind the bar that they instigated those two persons to do the same. The idea of approaching the Court by collecting the money was mooted by an advocate of another district (name withheld) and he on his own initiative with the aid of other named accused has collected the money of their own. There appears no any specific evidence from whom such money was collected. In such circumstances, only for the sake of further investigation which is again yet not specific as to how long it will continue, further detention of the accused for joint interrogation, which is general prayer of IO at all the time whenever a supplementary Charge-Sheet has been filed, cannot be maintained otherwise it will be a never ending process. The IO has to collect its evidence in its own way and file supplementary Charge-Sheet on the strength of evidence he collected, given against the present accused also but for the same reason prolonged custodial detention is not necessary. 30. It has been submitted by the learned P.P., Mr. Baruah, that recently prosecution sanction has been granted and the Trial Court has also taken cognizance of the offence and has submitted that there being more than hundred witnesses to be examined along with large number of documents. Considering the present scenario, there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in the near future, not to speak of expeditious disposal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also of the view that if there is a delay in the trial, the bail should be granted to the accused [reference Babba Vs. Considering the present scenario, there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in the near future, not to speak of expeditious disposal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also of the view that if there is a delay in the trial, the bail should be granted to the accused [reference Babba Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 2 SCC(cri) 118, (2000)1 SCC (cri) 416, Vivek Kumar Vs. State of U.P.]. 31. In case of Sanjay Chanda, same was reiterated that when the speedy trial is not possible for the variety of reasons, consideration of bail became a necessity. It has also been held that seriousness of the charge although one of the relevant consideration while considering bail application but it is not the only test and other factor also requires to be taken note of punishment that could be imposed after the trial and conviction. If former is the only test, the Court would not be balancing that Constitutional right, rather recalibrating the scales of justice. It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court that when the under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody for an indefinite period, Article 21 of the constitution is violated. In the present case, we are conscious of the fact that the present accused has been charged with the offences, the gravity of which cannot be denied but at the same time we cannot loose sight of the fact that though the investigation agency has completed the investigation and submitted the Charge-Sheet including supplementary Charge-Sheet, the fact remains that the necessary charges have not yet been framed and there is no certainty as to when the trial will commence and end and therefore, the presence of the accused in custody may not be necessary for further investigation. In deciding the bail application an important factor which certainly to be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial and in terms of the observation in Sanjay Chanda the Court has to strike a balance among all the factors in a given background of the case having regard to the parameter for consideration of bail, which have been taken note of. In case of Laloo Prashad (supra) and Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki (supra), bail of the accused persons were granted considering six months detention in an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and in the offence of murder where the Charge-Sheet has been filed in view of the fact that trial is likely to take a long time. 32. In view of above factual premises and on an in depth balancing of all relevant aspects and successive further investigation and the right of liberty, this Court concurred with the view taken in the case of Sanjay Chanda that imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper to refuse the bail and the detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as highlighted in the decisions referred above. The present set of accused applicants were behind the bar since last November’ 2017 and the investigation has already been completed as against them although some further investigation is going on having regard to the complex nature of the offence. Having regard to the latest Status Report, it appears that further detention of the accused in judicial custody is not an indispensable necessity for the unhindered investigation. The accused persons can be released on bail with stringent condition. 33. In the result, it is directed that all accused persons named above be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each, in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakhs only) to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Assam with the following conditions: (a) The appellants 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. (b) The appellant would surrender their passport to the Trial Court and will swear affidavit if they have no such passport. (c) They would not leave the territorial limits of the city of Guwahati without the written permission of the Trial court and without informing the investigating agency. (d) They would report before the Trial court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed in full. (c) They would not leave the territorial limits of the city of Guwahati without the written permission of the Trial court and without informing the investigating agency. (d) They would report before the Trial court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed in full. (e) They would cooperate with the investigation and would always be available to be interrogated by the investigating agency. (f) Any other condition as the Trial Court may consider to be appropriate, can be added if and as and when necessary. It is hereby, clarify that breach or non-compliance with any of the above conditions would entail immediate cancellation of the bail granted, either suo motu or on any complaint made by any quarter whatsoever. Apart therefrom, such a breach or non-compliance would be viewed very seriously and would visit the applicant with stringent adverse consequences as contemplated in law. The Trial court as well as the investigating agency are directed to keep continuous vigil in the matter so as to, if need be, bring to the notice of the trail Court any conduct or action of the applicant warranting recall of this order. With the observation and direction above, all bail applications stands disposed of. Return the Case Diary along with the Status Report.