JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Bail petitioner namely Dukhi Muhiya, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying therein for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 52/18 dated 17.6.2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, registered, at P.S. New Shimla, H.P. 2. Sequel to orders dated 28.2.2019 and 6.3.2019, passed by this Court, ASI Pradeep Kumar, I.O. P.S. New Shimla, HP, has come present in Court along with record of the case. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has also placed on record status report prepared on the basis of the investigation carried out by the investigating agency. Record perused and returned. 3. Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that on 27.6.2018, complaint namely Sh. Rakesh Verma, lodged a complaint at P.S. New Shimla, alleging therein that he after having searched internet, contacted the Deepak Enterprises (R), for hiring domestic help. He alleged that after deliberations for 2-3 days, present bail petitioner agreed to send one man accompanied by an agent on the condition that he would be charging commission of Rs. 10,000/- apart from 3 months advance salary i.e. 8000x3=24000/-. Allegedly on 17.6.2019, at around 8 am, agent of the bail petitioner contacted the complainant and received sum of Rs. 34,000/-, but thereafter, he fled away without providing domestic help. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, aforesaid FIR came to be lodged against the present bail petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC of IPC, registered at P.S. New Shimla, H.P and since 28.12.2018, petitioner is behind the bars. 4. Mr. Dheeraj K. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the record/status report strenuously argued that no case, if any, is made out against the present bail petitioner under aforesaid provisions of law because money, if any, never came to be received by the petitioner, rather as per own case set-up by the complaint, money was handed over to agent of the petitioner namely Ganesh who allegedly after having received sum of Rs. 34,000/- fled away along with domestic help sent by the petitioner. 34,000/- fled away along with domestic help sent by the petitioner. He further contended that person namely Ganesh as well as domestic help, sent by the petitioner on the basis of request made by the complainant, are absconding and as such, freedom of the petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period for the offence, if any, committed by his agent and other person. Mr. Verma, further contended that challan stands filed in the competent court of law and nothing remains to received from him and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served in case petitioner is allowed to incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period during trial. Learned counsel on the instructions of the petitioner stated that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit sum of Rs. 34,000/- allegedly taken on his behalf by his agent namely Ganesh. Lastly, he contended that there is no material adduced on record by the Investigating Agency suggestive of the fact that in the event of petitioner's not being enlarged on bail, he would flee from justice and as such, he being first offender deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly acknowledging the factum with regard to filing of challan in the competent court of law contended that sum of Rs. 34,000/- allegedly taken by the petitioner from the complainant is yet to be recovered and as such, petitioner cannot be ordered to enlarged on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that as per own case set up by the complainant, present bail petitioner had agreed to provide domestic help subject to payment of Rs. 34,000/- in total, but investigation clearly reveals that money, if any, came to be received by the agent (Ganesh) of the bail petitioner, who had sent domestic help along with the agent and as such, there appears to be considerable force in the argument of Sh. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that money at no point of time came to be received by the petitioner, rather same appears to have been misappropriated by his agent, who admittedly after having met the complainant on 17.6.2018, fled away along with domestic help sent by the petitioner. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, that money at no point of time came to be received by the petitioner, rather same appears to have been misappropriated by his agent, who admittedly after having met the complainant on 17.6.2018, fled away along with domestic help sent by the petitioner. Though, aforesaid aspects of the matter are to be considered and decided by the court below on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but this Court having perused material available on record at this stage, sees no reason to let the bail petitioner incarcerate in jail for an indefinite period, especially when guilt, if any, of him, is yet to be proved in accordance with law. Moreover petitioner is ready and willing to deposit sum of Rs. 34,000/- with the Investigating Agency. 7. Repeatedly, Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court have held that till the time, guilt of individual is not proved in accordance with law, he/she is deemed to be innocent and in the case at hand also, guilt, if any, of the bail petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law by the prosecution by leading cogent and convincing evidence. It is well settled that till the time a person is not found guilty, he/she is deemed to be innocent. 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 a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Hon'ble Apex Court further held that while conside ring prayer for grant of bail, 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. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as under: "2. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 49; 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 un-convicted 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 un-convicted 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 un-convicted 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. 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. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with 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/her 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. (e) He shall deposit sum of Rs. 34,000/- with the Investigating Agency. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. (e) He shall deposit sum of Rs. 34,000/- with the Investigating Agency. 14. It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. 15. 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 petition stands accordingly disposed of.