ORDER 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in connection with R.C. No.0072016A0008, registered with Police Station CBI, SPE, Dehradun for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. 2. An FIR was lodged by CBI on 08.08.2016 alleging that one Arun Kumar Sharma, the then Branch Manager, PNB, Vidhan Sabha Branch, Dehradun during the financial year 2009-10 inconnivance with V.K. Srivastava, the then DGM/Circle Head, V.K. Mahajan, the then AGM, V.K. Nagpal, the then AGM, A.K. Aneja, the then DGM, Smt. Archana Sethi, the then Chief Manager, H.S. Bhalla, the then Chief Manager, Sameer Bhatnagar, the then Manager, all of PNB Circle Office, Dehradun and Sanjay Poddar, partner of M/s. Vedant Steel Processing Centre, Roorkee (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. Vedant') defrauded the Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs.12 Crores by way of sanctioning a term loan of Rs.382 lakhs for Plant and Machinery and working capital (CC Limit) of Rs.750 lakhs in favour of M/s. Vedant for the purpose of processing of steel on 31.08.2009. 3. The FIR was registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation, charge sheet is filed. Learned trial court framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the C.B.I./ respondent. 5. Mr. After investigation, charge sheet is filed. Learned trial court framed charges against the applicant under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B of the I.P.C. 4. Heard Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel for the C.B.I./ respondent. 5. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated; there is no allegation levelled against the applicant in the FIR; the name of the applicant was first time introduced in the charge-sheet without any evidence; according to the charge sheet, M/s. Vedant had distributed Rs.40 lakhs on 26.09.2009, Rs.20 lakhs on 29.09.2009 and Rs.20 lakhs on 16.11.2009 from its Term Loan to M/s. Otto Steel Section, whereas, M/s. Otto Steel Section (Roorkee) was incorporated first time in the year, 2010, firstly as a proprietorship firm and later on it was converted into a partnership firm and remained operative till 2013; this firm was closed on 03.10.2013; the applicant was one of the partner of that firm; other partner of the firm was Smt. Chhavi Jain; the Bank account in the name of M/s. Otto Steel Section (Roorkee) was opened first time in Punjab National Bank, Branch Roorkee on 28.10.2010; no payment was either received by his firm or by the applicant from M/s. Vedant; the only allegation against the applicant is that he was doing the business with M/s. Vedant and issued the cheque in favour of M/s. Vedant; the applicant's firm not only purchased the goods from M/s. Vedant, but also purchased the goods from other firms and sold that goods to different purchasers; the applicant is 50 years old and a heart patient; he has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.01.2020. 6. Per contra, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/C.B.I, submitted that the applicant was the proprietor of M/s. Otto Steel Section and during the course of investigation, it was found through hearsay evidence that the applicant was an employee of co-accused Sanjay Poddar in his firm M/s. Jinendra Strips and Tubes Ltd.; M/s. Otto Steel Section (Roorkee) was established only for purpose of diversion of funds; this firm was not existed at the given address; all the fake firms i.e. Ansh Sales Corporation, Vijeta Iron and Steels etc. sent money in the account of M/s. Otto Steel Section (Roorkee); no other transaction was happened in the account of M/s Otto Steel Section (Roorkee); the account of M/s. Otto Steel section was closed after the diversion of money; documents have been filed along with the charge sheet; document no.30 is the statement of account of the firm of the applicant and no payment was received in the account of his firm from any other party except the said four firms; document No.31 to document no.44 are cheques, issued in favour of M/s. Vedant, which were issued by the applicant; the account of M/s. Otto Steel Section was introduced by the present applicant in the capacity as a proprietor of M/s. CORAL Industries; the name of M/s. CORAL industries was mentioned as a debtor of M/s. Vedant, however, no finished product was actually sold to M/s. Vedant and only banking transactions were done from this firm's account for the purpose of diversion of money; the applicant filed the copies of documentary evidences first time before this Court; therefore, the genuineness of these documents are doubt. 7. There is no prima face evidence on record that the applicant was the employee of co-accused Sanjay Poddar. The applicant filed the copy of Partnership Deed dated 1.1.2011 and after execution of Partnership deed, it was informed to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Roorkee. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax passed the order on 14.03.2013. The applicant filed copies of various commercial tax assessments of the Department of Commercial Tax regarding business transaction of M/s Otto Steel Section (Roorkee) and according to these documents, the registration number of M/s. Otto Steel Section was 05010383584 and its principle place of business was situated at 711/20 A Mathura Vihar, Roorkee. The applicant filed copies of several purchase invoice of goods. 8. Bail is the rule and the committal to jail is an exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. The object of keeping the accused person in detention during the trial is not punishment. The main purpose is manifestly to secure the attendance of the accused. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant had earlier been involved in any unacceptable activity. The applicant, aged about 50 years, was granted short term bail for two times for two-two months on 25.03.2020 and 17.08.2020 on the ground of his illness. There is nothing to indicate that the conditions of short term bail were either abused or misused by the applicant. There is no prima facie evidence on the record that the documents, filed by the applicant, are false or fabricated. Tampering with the evidence or the investigation is no longer relevant since charge sheet has already been filed. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the personal liberty is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no reason to keep the applicant behind the bars for an indefinite period, therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant deserves bail at this stage. 10. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :- i) the applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment; ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case; 12. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the Court for cancellation of bail. 13. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution will be free to move the Court for cancellation of bail. 13. It is also clarified that the observations made regarding the bail application are limited to the decision, in the light of the facts, provided by the parties at this stage, as to whether the bail application should be allowed or not and the said observations shall not effect the trial of the case. 14. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the applicant within 48 hours on the payment of usual charges.