Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 746 (GAU)

Samedur Rahman v. State Of Assam

2020-11-09

MIR ALFAZ ALI

body2020
JUDGMENT Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - This is a regular bail application u/s 439 Cr.P.C. praying for bail by the petitioner, namely, Samedur Rahman, who is in detention in connection with Bhangagarh P.S. Case No. 159/2017 registered under sections 120(B)/420/468 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7/13 (1) (a) (d) (iii) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Z. Kamar and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state-respondent, Mr. M. Phukan were heard. 3. Sri Bedantha Bikash Das lodged an FIR on 17-08-2017 with the Bhangagarh Police Station alleging therein that he appeared in the competitive examination conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission (in short APSC) for the post of Agricultural Development Officer (ADO) in the year 2014. The Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and his associate middleman, one Mossaraf Hossain demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from the informant, Bedantha Bikash Das as bribe to ensure the job. Accordingly, the informant paid Rs. 50,000/- to the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul at Satsang Vihar, Bhangagarh, Guwahati as advance, but the informant could not succeed in the examination, as he failed to fulfill the demand made by Sri Rakesh Paul. Later on, the informant came to know from the information supplied by the APSC on the basis of his application under the RTI Act, that there were anomalies in the marks given to the candidates in the viva-voice test. In the two replies given by the APSC to the query made under the RTI Act, different marks were shown against the same candidate. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR police registered the case, conducted investigation and initially charge-sheet was filed against the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and another. However, having regard to the larger conspiracy involved in the case, further investigation continued and several supplementary charge-sheets were filed against various accused persons. 4. The present petitioner, Samedur Rahman, who has been a member of the APSC was arrested on 31-08-2018 and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 26-10-2018, where he has been arrayed as accused No. 4. 4. The present petitioner, Samedur Rahman, who has been a member of the APSC was arrested on 31-08-2018 and a supplementary charge-sheet was filed against him on 26-10-2018, where he has been arrayed as accused No. 4. Accusation against the petitioner was that he being a member of the APSC entered into a criminal conspiracy with the Chairman of the APSC, Sri Rakesh Paul and other members as well as the job aspirants to provide job for cash and illegally selected the candidates for the post of ADO. 5. The prayer for bail of this petitioner was rejected by this Court on 12-02-2020. 6. The plea for bail of the petitioner has been resisted by filing a written objection along with a status report. The bail plea of the petitioner has been resisted inter alia, on the prime grounds that charges against the petitioner is serious, sufficient evidence has been collected against the present petitioner, inasmuch as, forensic examination report confirmed that there were manipulation by way of enhancement and reduction of marks of the candidates in their mark sheets at the time of interview with a view to give undue advantage to the candidates of their choice, necessity of joint interrogation of the petitioner with other accused on the basis of forensic report, huge amount of money transaction by way of credit through cheques surfaced in course of analysis of the bank statement of the petitioner, possibility of hampering the investigation by the petitioner by way of tempering evidence and the apprehension of influencing the witnesses by the petitioner. 7. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Z. Kamar strenuously arguing for admitting the petitioner on bail made the following submission :- The petitioner was not named in the FIR and there was no material to suggest that he took bribe from any candidate, inasmuch as, specific allegation of taking bribe was against the Chairman, Sri Rakesh Paul. On earlier occasion when the bail petition of the petitioner was considered, the prosecution resisted the petition on the plea, that joint interrogation of the petitioner with the candidates, who secured job by paying money, was necessary. However, the ADOs, who were alleged to have procured the job illegally by giving bribe were neither arrested nor subjected to joint interrogation with the petitioner. However, the ADOs, who were alleged to have procured the job illegally by giving bribe were neither arrested nor subjected to joint interrogation with the petitioner. Rather, when they approached this Court for pre-arrest bail, prosecution supported the prayer for pre-arrest bail of all the 35 ADOs, all of whom were charge-sheeted without any joint interrogation. The petitioner was arrested on 31-08-2018 and charge-sheet against him was filed on 26-10-2018. He has been in custody for more than two years, though, no additional incriminating material could be produced against the petitioner in any of the subsequent supplementary charge-sheet. Although more than three years have elapsed from the date of lodging of the FIR and more than two years have elapsed from the date of arrest of the petitioner, the learned trial court is yet to take cognizance for want of prosecution sanction u/s 19 of the P.C. Act. The prayer of the petitioner for speedy trial was turned down by the learned trial court. Further investigation of the case is concluded by way of filing of the final supplementary charge-sheet on 09-10- 2020. The release of the petitioner, who has been in detention for more than two years is necessary so as to enable him to prepare his defence in the interest of fair trial, inasmuch as, keeping the petitioner in jail shall prejudice his right to fair trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The investigation having been concluded, there is no question of the petitioner tempering with any evidence or hampering the investigation. No material could be shown that the petitioner ever tried or attempted to influence any witness. The majority of the co-accused persons including the 35 ADOs with whom the petitioner and other members of the APSC allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy in order to provide job for cash were already enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in custody for long time, and that the gravity of offence is not the sole consideration for bail. 8. In order to bolster his submission, Mr. Kamar placed reliance on the following authorities : 1 Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI,2019 SCCOnlineSC 1380 3 Ash Mohammad Vs. Sivraj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 4 Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 5. Babu Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579 9. Kamar placed reliance on the following authorities : 1 Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 2 P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI,2019 SCCOnlineSC 1380 3 Ash Mohammad Vs. Sivraj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 4 Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 7 SCC 525 5. Babu Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Makhan Phukan submitted that the offence involved in the instant case is a socio-economic offence, which constitutes a "class apart", having great impact on the society at large, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. To argue, that the offence charged against the petitioner is economic offence, which constitutes a "class apart" and is required to be viewed differently, Mr. Phukan placed reliance on the following authorities of the Apex Court 1. State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar and Baccha Roy,2017 13 SCC 761 2. Y.S. Jag Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 3. Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 10. Mr. Phukan further submits that the earlier bail petition of this petitioner was rejected by this Court having taken into account the gravity of the offence and that a coordinate bench of this court rejected the bail petition of two of the co-accused, being the Chairman of the APSC, Rakesh Paul and another member, Basanta Kumar Doley. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there shall be a danger of the witness being influenced by him. 11. Due to consideration is given to the submission made by learned counsel of both the sides. 12. The Court is vested with the discretion to grant or refuse bail in case of a non-bailable offence. It, however, goes without saying, that such discretion has to be exercised judicially, keeping in view the settled principles and the relevant factors for consideration of bail, outlined by the Apex Court from time to time in various pronouncements. It would therefore, be apposite to re-capitulate the guidelines and factors for consideration of bail, laid down by the Apex Court from time to time. 13. The Apex Court in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 775 dealing with the factors to be taken into account while considering application for bail, held in paragraph-25 of the judgment as under : "25. 13. The Apex Court in Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2008) 3 SCC 775 dealing with the factors to be taken into account while considering application for bail, held in paragraph-25 of the judgment as under : "25. This Court in Amarmani Tripathis case (supra) had held that while considering the application for bail, what is required to be looked is, (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 charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of 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 tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail." 14. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., (2013) 7 SCC 466 , the Apex Court observed as under: "While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 15. In Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 406 , the Apex Court observed in paragraph-16 as under: "16. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another. In Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 406 , the Apex Court observed in paragraph-16 as under: "16. The court has to keep in mind what has been stated in Chaman Lal vs. State of U.P. and another. The requisite factors are: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and another, it has been opined that while exercising the power for grant of bail, the court has to keep in mind certain circumstances and factors. We may usefully reproduce the said passage:- "9....among other circumstances, the factors which are to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to be believed 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." 16. In Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh & Anr.(supra) outlining the relevant consideration for bail, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "8. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh , it has been opined that the grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of the crime warrants more caution and there is greater chance of rejection of bail, though, however dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. The heinous nature of the crime warrants more caution and there is greater chance of rejection of bail, though, however dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. In the said case the learned Judges referred to the decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi and stated as follows: (Ram Govind case, SCC p. 602, para 4) "(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations." "(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail." "(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but (2012) 9 SCC 446 (2002) 3 SCC 598 there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." "(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail." "9. In Chaman Lal v. State of U.P.24 this Court while dealing with an application for bail has stated that certain factors are to be considered for grant of bail, they are: (SCC p. 525) ... (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." "10. In Masroor v. State of U.P.25, while giving emphasis to ascribing reasons for granting of bail, however, brief it may be, a two-Judge Bench observed that: (SCC p. 290, para 15). There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case." "11. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee 26 it has been observed that (SCC p. 499, para 9) normally this Court does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting the bail of the accused, however, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point." "9. ... among other circumstances, the factors [which are] to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (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." "20. Having said about the sanctity of liberty and the restrictions imposed by law and the necessity of collective security, we may proceed to state as to what is the connotative concept of bail. In Halsbury's Laws of England it has been stated thus:" "166. Effect of bail.--The effect of granting bail is not to set the defendant [(accused) at liberty], but to release him from the custody of the law and to entrust him to the custody of his sureties, who are bound to produce him to appear at his trial at a specified time and place. The sureties may seize their principal at any time and may discharge themselves by handing him over to the custody of law, and he will then be imprisoned...." "21. The sureties may seize their principal at any time and may discharge themselves by handing him over to the custody of law, and he will then be imprisoned...." "21. In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India 27 Dr A.S. Anand, learned Chief Justice, in his concurring opinion, observed: (SCC pp. 429-30, para 24) "24. ... Bail is well understood in criminal jurisprudence and Chapter 33 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains (2000) 3 SCC 409 elaborate provisions relating to grant of bail. Bail is granted to a person who has been arrested in a non-bailable offence or has been convicted of an offence after trial. The effect of granting bail is to release the accused from internment though the court would still retain constructive control over him through the sureties. In case the accused is released on his own bond such constructive control could still be exercised through the conditions of the bond secured from him. The literal meaning of the word 'bail' is surety." (emphasis supplied) 17. In Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (supra) the Supreme Court, having elaborately dealt with various aspect of pre-trial bail, including the "object of bail" test of "necessity" as well as the role of the nature and seriousness of the offence in consideration of bail, held as under : "21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that 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 is 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. "22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that 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. "22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that 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 this country, 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. "23. 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 purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. "24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the "pointing finger of accusation" against the appellants is "the seriousness of the charge". The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our view, seriousness of the charge is, no doubt, one of the relevant considerations while considering bail applications but that is not the only test or the factor: the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice". ***** "39. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional rights but rather "recalibrating the scales of justice". ***** "39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds: the primary ground is that the offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer; the secondary ground is that of the possibility of the accused persons tampering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property and forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration." ***** "46. We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge-sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI." (emphasis supplied) 18. In a most recent decision in P. Chidambaram vs. CBI,2019 SCCOnline(SC) 1380 the Supreme Court has held : "22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In a most recent decision in P. Chidambaram vs. CBI,2019 SCCOnline(SC) 1380 the Supreme Court has held : "22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations (vide Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi). There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. ....." ***** "33. The appellant is not a "flight risk" and in view of the conditions imposed, there is no possibility of his abscondence from the trial. Statement of the prosecution that the appellant has influenced the witnesses and there is likelihood of his further influencing the witnesses cannot be the ground to deny bail to the appellant particularly, when there is no such whisper in the six remand applications filed by the prosecution. The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant and other co-accused on 18.10.2019. The appellant is in custody from 21.08.2019 for about two months. The co-accused were already granted bail. The appellant is said to be aged 74 years and is also said to be suffering from age related health problems. Considering the above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be granted bail." (emphasis supplied) 19. In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement,2019 SCCOnline(SC) 1459, the Supreme Court has explained the concept and application of "grave offence" in the following way : "12. .... Considering the above factors and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to be granted bail." (emphasis supplied) 19. In P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement,2019 SCCOnline(SC) 1459, the Supreme Court has explained the concept and application of "grave offence" in the following way : "12. .... The gravity can only beget the length of sentence provided in law and by asserting that the offence is grave, the grant of bail cannot be thwarted. The respondent cannot contend as if the appellant should remain in custody till the trial is over. "23. .... Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial." (emphasis supplied) 20. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (supra), the Apex Court commenting on the "economic offence" as well as the factors to be considered for bail the Apex Court held in para 34 & 35 as under : "34. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (supra), the Apex Court commenting on the "economic offence" as well as the factors to be considered for bail the Apex Court held in para 34 & 35 as under : "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 21. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (supra), the Apex Court held as under : "While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 28) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 28) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 22. In State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has also reiterated the same view that economic offence having huge impact on the society is required to be viewed differently. 23. Keeping in mind the above factors and guidelines, we may now proceed to examine the plea for bail of the petitioner. 24. Before considering the rival pleas raised by both the sides for and against the granting of bail, in the light of the accepted guidelines, it would be apposite to clarify at the outset, the issue of maintainability of this second successive bail application as raised by the learned Addl. P.P. It is the trite law, that refusal of a bail application does not necessarily preclude the subsequent bail application at a later stage on the basis of new development and different consideration. For any authority, the observation of the Apex Court in Babu Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579 may be profitably referred to. 25. The Apex Court in Babu Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. (supra) commenting on the successive bail application held as under : "2.Briefly we will state the facts pertinent to the, present petition and prayer and proceed thereafter to ratiocinate on the relevant criteria in considering the interlocutory relief of bail. Right at the beginning, we must mention that, at an earlier stage, their application for bail was rejected by this, Court on September 7, 1977. But an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another, on a later occasion, giving more materials, further, developments and different considerations. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. While we surely must set store by this circumstance, we cannot accede to the faint plea that we are, barred from second consideration' at a later stage. An interim direction is not a conclusive adjudication, and updated reconsideration is not over turning an earlier negation. In this view, we entertain the application and evaluate the merits pro and con." 26. The earlier bail application of this petitioner was considered and rejected by this court on 12-02- 2020, nine months before, on the basis of the plea raised therein, when the investigation was still continuing. In the meantime, the investigation is concluded and some of the pleas raised in the earlier bail application has become irrelevant, because of the new development and conclusion of investigation, which itself is changed circumstance for the petitioner to come up with the second bail application. As regards the order dated 14-08-2020 passed in Bail Appln. No. 1097/2020, referred by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, whereby the prayer for bail of the co-accused Rakesh Paul and Basanta Kumar Doley was rejected by a coordinate bench, it may be mentioned, that the said bail application was also considered when the further investigation was still continuing, inter alia on the ground that joint interrogation of the accused persons were necessary. In the said judgment, the learned coordinate bench, while rejecting the prayer for bail, held as under : "24. In view of all above, while taking note of entirety of the matter and having regard to the prayer of the IO, this Court is of the considered opinion that accused persons cannot be released at this stage and accordingly, both the bail petitions are rejected, however, with a direction to the IO to complete the interrogation and to submit FF before the learned trial court within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today and no more further extension of time can be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioners are at liberty to renew their bail prayers before the trial court and in the event of filing such bail applications, the learned trial court will decide the same on its own merit without being influenced by the order of this Court. The jail authority is also hereby directed to provide proper care to the accused persons, as per the Government guidelines issued under COVID-19 pandemic." 27. It is apparent from the aforesaid order dtd. The jail authority is also hereby directed to provide proper care to the accused persons, as per the Government guidelines issued under COVID-19 pandemic." 27. It is apparent from the aforesaid order dtd. 14-08-2020 passed by the coordinate bench, that although the prayer for bail of the applicants therein, was rejected so as to enable the investigating agency to complete the investigation, the court strictly directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation within 8 (eight) weeks. It was also made clear, that there would be no further extension of time for completing the further investigation. Liberty was also given to the applicants of the said bail application to renew their prayer for bail after conclusion of the investigation. As already mentioned hereinbefore that investigation is concluded, the order made by the coordinate bench in BA No. 1097/2020 cannot come even in the way of any bail application filed by the applicants of the said bail application, least to speak of the present petitioner. When the present bail application has been filed on changed circumstance or new development in the facts situation, the rejection of his earlier bail application or rejection of the bail prayer of the co-accused by coordinate bench cannot be an impediment for the present application. 28. Coming to the merit of the instant application, thrust of the argument of the learned Addl. P.P. against the plea of bail appears to be the seriousness of the offence. This Court is conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with a socio-economic offence, which constitutes "a class apart" and considered to be a grave offence having enormous social impact. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact, that the seriousness of the offence is not the sole factor for consideration of bail, nor it is the law that bail shall not be granted in case of serious offence. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact, that the seriousness of the offence is not the sole factor for consideration of bail, nor it is the law that bail shall not be granted in case of serious offence. Gravity and seriousness of the offence, though a very relevant factor, needs to be considered, while granting or refusing bail, it is not the sole factor and therefore, while exercising the judicial discretion in consideration of a bail application, the Court is obliged to take into account all other relevant factors including the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to presumption of innocence of an accused, unless his guilt is proved in trial, the question of personal liberty, social impact, right of the accused to fair trial and the necessity of detention in custody pending trial. 29. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (supra) observed that "seriousness of the charge is, no doubt one of the relevant considerations, while considering bail applications, but that is not the only test or the factor; the other factor that also requires to be taken note of is the punishment that could be imposed after trial and conviction, both under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the constitutional right, but rather, "re-calibration of scales of justice"." In Sanjay Chandra's case, the Apex Court granted bail to the accused being conscious of the fact that the accused was charged with economic offence of huge magnitude, taking into account that investigation was complete and presence of the accused in custody was not necessary for further investigation and that no material was placed on record to substantiate any apprehension of the accused tempering with evidence. 30. In Y.S. Jog Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI (supra), the Apex Court observed that "severity of the punishment, which the conviction will entail is one of the vital factor to be kept in mind while granting bail". In P. Chidambaram Vs. Director of Enforcement (supra) the Apex Court observed that "by asserting that the offence is grave, the grant of bail cannot be thwarted. The respondent cannot contend as if the appellant should remain in custody till the trial is over." 31. In P. Chidambaram Vs. Director of Enforcement (supra) the Apex Court observed that "by asserting that the offence is grave, the grant of bail cannot be thwarted. The respondent cannot contend as if the appellant should remain in custody till the trial is over." 31. Apparently the petitioner has been in custody for more than two years and the trial is yet to commence, though investigation is completed. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamar, referring to the orders passed by the learned Special Judge submitted that though, charge-sheet was filed as back as on 26-10-2018, the trial court is yet to take cognizance against the petitioner, for want of prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel has also pointed out that no sanction is required in view of the judgment of this Court in Kalyanraman Vs. CBI, (2012) 4 GauLT 272 , inasmuch as, the petitioner is already retired and is no longer in service. Be that as it may, the fact remains is that trial has not yet commenced and the petitioner is in custody for more than two years, and such prolonged incarceration in jail is certainly a vital factor for consideration of bail. 32. The Apex Court in Babba Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 11 SCC 569 as well as Vivek Kumar Vs. state of U.P., (2009) 9 SCC 433 observed that when there is delay in trial, bail should be granted to the accused. The Apex Court in Deepak Subash Ch. Mehta Vs. CBI, (2012) AIR SC 949 held that the principle of granting bail to the accused when there is delay in trial should not be applied in all cases mechanically. In State of Kerala vs. Ranuf, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Apex Court having taken note of delay in conclusion of trial, granted bail to the accused, who was in custody for 66 days. In Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. In State of Kerala vs. Ranuf, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , the Apex Court having taken note of delay in conclusion of trial, granted bail to the accused, who was in custody for 66 days. In Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2002) 9 SCC 372, the Apex Court granted bail to the accused, who was in custody for 6 (six) months, having taken note of the seriousness of the charge (economic offence) and the maximum sentence of punishment that could be imposed on the accused upon conviction In P. Chidambaram-Vs.- CBI (supra) also the length of detention was considered as one of the factor and bail was granted to the accused, who was in custody for about two months. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that length of detention and prolonged incarceration in jail is obviously an important consideration for granting bail, which is required to be taken into account along with other factors. 33. It is generally accepted for long time, that the object of bail is to secure presence of the accused in trial and pre-trial detention or bail is never considered to be punitive, howsoever, serious the offence may be. Therefore, in view of the presumption of innocence till a person is held guilty after trial, one cannot be refused bail in order to give him a lesson, only because the offence is serious one. The detention or imprisonment under whatever description before trial contains substantial punitive element. The Apex Court therefore observed that it would be improper to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson (vide Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI). 34. In the instant case, the maximum sentence that the conviction will entail is 10 years and the petitioner has already completed more than two years in jail and the trial is yet to commence; even cognizance has not been taken. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the quantum of punishment which can be imposed on the accused on conviction, the detention for more than two years, in my considered view, seems to be a vital factor to be taken into consideration for bail in favour of the petitioner. 35. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the quantum of punishment which can be imposed on the accused on conviction, the detention for more than two years, in my considered view, seems to be a vital factor to be taken into consideration for bail in favour of the petitioner. 35. Although in the bail objection, it was stated that there is possibility of the accused hampering the investigation or tampering with evidence, such apprehension has become stale, in the meantime, inasmuch as, the investigation has been completed. This apart, from the nature of accusation, it is not difficult to understand that the prosecution case would be mostly banking on the documentary evidence which are already in custody of the court, and as such, there is no reasonable ground for apprehension of the accused tempering with evidence. 36. One of the objection against the plea of bail is that there is possibility of the accused influencing the witness. In the bail objection/status report, the investigation officer averred that "the accused may influence the probable witnesses". However, except making an averment in the written objection, that there is possibility of the accused influencing the witness, no material is placed on record to show that the accused ever tried or attempted to influence any witness. In P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI (supra), the Apex Court observed on the basis of the materials in that case, that in absence of any contemporary material, no weight can be attached to the allegation that the accused shall influence the witness by approaching them. In absence of any material to substantiate the apprehension of the accused influencing the witness, there cannot be any presumption against the petitioner that he shall influence witness, while on bail. Therefore, the unsubstantiated apprehension that accused may influence the witness deserves no weight. 37. Having regard to the status, position and deep root of the petitioner in the society, it is also difficult to apprehend that the petitioner may jump bail or shall not face trial in the event of enlargement on bail, and in fact, there is absolutely no allegation, that the petitioner may not face the trial or may jump bail. Thus, the petitioner is also not a "flight risk". This apart, presence of the petitioner can be ensured by taking suitable surety and imposing suitable condition. 38. Thus, the petitioner is also not a "flight risk". This apart, presence of the petitioner can be ensured by taking suitable surety and imposing suitable condition. 38. The right to fair trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is yet another most weighty factor, which also deserves serious consideration in exercising the holistic jurisdiction of judicial discretion. The petitioner is in pre-trial detention. If the petitioner is kept confined in jail, in all probability he will be deprived of preparing his defence effectively, for not being able to consult a lawyer of his choice or collecting evidence etc. In Motiram-Vs. State (supra) the Apex Court observed that "the jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence". However, it goes without saying that public justice being central to the whole scheme of bail law (as observed by V.R. Krishna Ajai, J), the Court is required to strike a balance between the personal right & liberty and social defence or interest of the society, while considering bail application. In the instant case, as already noticed, the "test of necessity" is tilted towards granting of bail to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the investigation is completed and there is no "flight risk", nor there is any reasonable apprehension of the petitioner influencing any witness or tempering with any evidence. The petitioner having retired, there is also no question of committing any further offence by him. Therefore, having taken note of the entire facts and circumstances including the prolonged detention of the present petitioner for more than 2 years, this Court does not find reason to perceive any grave threat to the interest of the society in the event of admitting the petitioner to bail. 39. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances it its entirety, the case of the petitioner seems to be squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra's and P. Chidambaram's case for releasing him on bail. 40. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 40. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, it is provided that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1 (one) lakh with a solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati subject to the following conditions : (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court once in a month, date to be fixed by the trial court, until trial starts. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Court on each dates fixed for hearing of the case or as directed by the learned trial court. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the Court and in case of remaining absent due to unavoidable circumstances, he shall give intimation to the Court that he may be permitted to be represented by his counsel. (iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered) to the special judge and in case, he is not a holder of the same, shall swear an affidavit to that effect. (v) The applicant shall not leave the territorial limits of the trial court without the prior written permission of the trial court. 41. Bail petition stands disposed of accordingly. 42. Return the case diary.