JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 04/18 dated 8. 1. 2018, registered at P. S. Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, HP, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, bail petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant bail petition. 2. Sequel to order dated 22. 1. 2018, ASI Ajit Singh, PS Sadar Shimla, District Shimla, H. P. , has come present along with records. Record perused and returned. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of investigation carried out by the Investigating Agency till date, perusal whereof suggests that aforesaid FIR came to be registered against the bail petitioner at the behest of the complainant namely Jagdish Sharma, District Treasury Officer, District Shimla, HP, who alleged that the petitioner fraudulently and unauthorisedly withdrew an amount of Rs. 4,76,418/-, from the Treasury. As per the complainant, father of the petitioner was holder of P. P. O. No. 110802904 and had been continuously withdrawing pension after his retirement from the Governor Secretariat. Late Shri Jagan Nath, who happened to be father of the petitioner, rendered his services in the Governor Secretariat as Khidmatkar, before his superannuation. Aforesaid pensioner retired on 30. 4. 2008 and since then, his pension was being sent online to his saving account No. 65002546045, State Bank of India, Chhota Shimla. On 7. 12. 2017, bail petitioner impersonating himself to be pensioner i. e. late Shri Jagan Nath, approached the Manager of the State Bank of India, for issuance of life certificate, which is required to be submitted every year. Manager of the said Bank advised the petitioner to make available identity card/proof, if any, to enable him to issue life certificate, but fact remains that the petitioner was unable to produce any identity proof and as such, manager got suspicious and accordingly, informed the matter to the District Treasury Officer, District Shimla, who in turn after having verified record informed that the pensioner namely Jagan Nath, has expired on 24. 4. 2014 and as such, aforesaid FIR, came to be, lodged against the bail petitioner. 3. Investigation reveals that the bail petitioner despite having knowledge of the death of the pensioner (father of the bail petitioner), unauthorisedly and fraudulently kept on withdrawing pension from saving account of late Jagan Nath till 1. 9. 4. 2014 and as such, aforesaid FIR, came to be, lodged against the bail petitioner. 3. Investigation reveals that the bail petitioner despite having knowledge of the death of the pensioner (father of the bail petitioner), unauthorisedly and fraudulently kept on withdrawing pension from saving account of late Jagan Nath till 1. 9. 2017 and never disclosed factum with regard to the death of his father i. e. pensioner, to the department. Rather, petitioner fraudulently procured life certificate from different quarters and submitted the same to the pension disbursing authorities and in this manner, misappropriated an amount of Rs. 4,76, 418/-, after the death of pensioner late Sh. Jagan Nath. 4. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to the record/status report submitted by the Investigating Agency vehemently argued that the bail petitioner has committed fraud by fraudulently withdrawing an amount of Rs. 4,76,418/- and as such, he does not deserve any leniency and his petition deserves to be dismissed. However, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly submitted that pursuant to order dated 22. 1. 2018, bail petitioner has joined the investigation and at this stage, nothing is required to be recovered from the bail petitioner save and except an amount of Rs. 4,76,418/- which has been fraudulently withdrawn by him. 5. Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate, representing the bail petitioner while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the petitioner is not involved in the case and at no point of time, he submitted false life certificate to the bank authorities as is alleged by the Investigating Agency. Learned counsel further contended that the bail petitioner is a local resident of the area and there is no likelihood of his absconding from the investigation and trial and as such, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial, if any, against the bail petitioner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully gone through the record/status report. 7. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully gone through the record/status report. 7. After having carefully perused the record/status report, though it is apparent that the bail petitioner, who happened to be the son of the pensioner namely Jagan Nath, impersonated himself to be Jagan Nath and made an attempt to procure life certificate from the Manager, State Bank of India, Chhota Shimla, but guilt of the petitioner, if any, is yet to be proved in accordance with law by the Investigating Agency by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, it may not be in the interest of justice to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in custody for an indefinite period, especially when he has already joined the investigation as has been fairly admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. , decided on 6. 2. 2018, has categorically held that freedom of an individual is of utmost importance and same cannot be curtailed merely on the basis of suspicion. Hon''ble Apex Court has further held that till the time guilt of the accused is not proved in accordance with law, he is deemed to be innocent. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: "2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case. 4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by incorporating an Explanation to Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. An equally soft approach to incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting Section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons. 9. Needless to say object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime. 10. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation , 2012 1 SCC 40 ; held as under:- " 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. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. Detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted 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 India , 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. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of 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 unconvicted person for the propose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. " 11. In Manoranjana Sinh Alias Gupta versus CBI , 2017 5 SCC 218 , The Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:- " This Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, also involving an economic offence of formidable magnitude, while dealing with the issue of grant of bail, had observed that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that an accused person would stand his trial when called upon and that 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 found guilty. It was underlined that the object of bail is neither punitive or preventive. This Court sounded a caveat 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 a conduct whether an accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him to taste of imprisonment as a lesson. It was enunciated that since the jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused pending trial or in appeal against conviction is discretionary in nature, it has to be exercised with care ad caution by balancing the valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. It was elucidated that the seriousness of the charge, is no doubt one of the relevant considerations while examining the application of bail but it was not only the test or the factor and the grant or denial of such privilege, is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. That detention in custody of under trial prisoners for an indefinite period would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution was highlighted. " 12. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another , 2010 14 SCC 496 , has laid down the following principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 13. Reliance is placed on judgment passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v. State of Gujarat , 2017 2 SCC 731 , relevant para whereof has been reproduced herein below:- "11. This Court has consistently recognised the right of the accused for a speedy trial. Delay in criminal trial has been held to be in violation of the right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See: Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India , 1994 6 SCC 731 ; Shaheen Welfare Assn. v. Union of India , 1996 2 SCC 616 Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. v. Union of India , 1996 2 SCC 616 Accused, even in cases under TADA, have been released on bail on the ground that they have been in jail for a long period of time and there was no likelihood of the completion of the trial at the earliest. (See: Paramjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) , 1999 9 SCC 252 and Babba v. State of Maharashtra , 2005 11 SCC 569 ). 14. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 22. 1. 2018 passed by this Court, is made absolute, subject to the following conditions: a. He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application; b. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever; c. He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and d. He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court. 15. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses his liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 16. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. Copy dasti.