ORDER : 1. This is an application under section 439 of Cr. P.C. praying for release of one B.D. jangade, General Manager, NHIDCL who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR Case No. 0008/2023, of Mokokchung P.S. under section 406 of IPC read with section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2015 which has been re-registered as State Crime PS No. 03/21 under sections 406 and 409, IPC read with sections 7 and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2015. 2. Heard. Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and also heard Mr. Kevi Angami, learned P.P. State of Nagaiand. 3. Following a complaint lodged by the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung to the Superintendent of Police Mokokchung which alleged that in a video which has gone viral, Mr. B.D. Jangade, General Manager, NHIDCL was seen demanding a cut of 1% from every contract work executed by contractors as his share, an FIR No. 0008/2023, under section 406 of IPC read with section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Mokokchung PS, and. thereafter, the accused, was arrested in the evening of 2.6.2021 and he was remanded to police custody for 15 days. During that time, the State Crime PS, Look over the case and the FIR was re-registered as State crime PS Case No. 03/21, under sections 406 and 409, IPC read with sections 7 and S of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2015. On completion of the police custody period the accused was remanded to judicial custody. The accused approached the court of Special fudge, Mokokchung by filing a bail application which was registered as LA (Criminal) No. 3/2021. The hail application was heard on 24.6.2021 and it was disposed of on 25.6.2021, with an order rejecting the same. Being aggrieved, the accused is before this court through his friend by filing the present application. 4. Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the person who appeared in the video is no doubt the accused himself but, the voice recorded therein is not of his and, there is nothing from the investigation done so far to show that the same is that of the accused. Therefore, no prima facie case has been made out against him by the investigation. Therefore, no prima facie case has been made out against him by the investigation. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused has been under custody for more than a month and the investigation is more or less completed. As such, no purpose would be served by keeping a person like him who is a high ranking official of NHIDCL. It is also submitted that the accused being responsible officer will always be available as and when he is needed for the investigation or to face his trial in case the charge sheet is submitted. Considering all these, he may be released on bail with whatever condition this court may deem fit and proper. In support of his submission, Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel referred to a judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court, passed in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 . The relevant paragraphs are paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 37, 39, 43, 46 and. 48. The contents of the paragraphs mentioned are reproduced here below:— “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 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. 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 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 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. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a 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 purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 24. In the instant case, as 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 has resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is possibility of the appellants tampering 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, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act. Otherwise, if the former is the only test, we would not be balancing the Constitutional Rights but rather “recalibration of the scales of justice.” 25. The provisions of Cr. P.C. confer discretionary jurisdiction on criminal courts to grant bail to accused pending trial or in appeal against convictions, since the jurisdiction is discretionary, it has to be exercised with great care and caution by balancing valuable right of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society in general. In our view, the reasoning adopted by the learned district Judge, which is affirmed by the High Court, in our opinion, a denial of the whole basis of our system of law and normal rule of bail system. It transcends respect for the requirement that a man shall be considered innocent until he is found guilty. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. 37. The principles, which the court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by this court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. 37. The principles, which the court must consider while granting or declining bail, have been culled out by this court in the case of Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT. Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , thus: “The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment “which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing 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 or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind (hat for the purposes of granting the 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 (sic. itself) 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.” 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 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 the possibility of the accused-persons tempering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment 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 (he punishment should be taken into consideration. 43. There are seventeen accused-persons. Statement of the witnesses runs to several hundred pages and the documents on which reliance is placed by the prosecution, is voluminous. The trial may take considerable time and it looks to us that the appellants, who are in jail, have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention, had they been convicted. It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, “would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody, that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet. 46. We arc 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 jeopardize 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 fudge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, (heir 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. 48. Therefore, (heir 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. 48. In the result, we order that the appellants be released on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi on the following conditions— (a) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts or the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (b) They shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If they want to remain absent, then they shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, they shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and also to the Superintendent, CBI and request that they may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (c) They will not dispute their identity as the accused in the case. (d) They shall surrender their passport, if any (if not already surrendered), and in case, they are not a holder of the same, they shall swear to an affidavit. If they have already surrendered before the learned Special fudge, CBI, that fact should also be supported by an affidavit. (e) We reserve liberty to the CBI to make an appropriate application for modification/recalling the order passed by us, if for any reason, the appellants violate any of the conditions imposed by this court.” 5. Mr. Wati Jamir, also submitted that while considering a bail application what must be taken into view by Courts are; is the nature and gravity of the charge; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; character, behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. In this case the accused being a high ranking officer of NHIDCL, there is no danger of him absconding or fleeing and, tampering with witnesses or evidence. As such, he may be granted bail. The learned counsel referred to paragraph 21 of the judgment passed by the hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali in support of his submission. 6. Mr. Kevi Angami, learned P.P. appearing for the State of Nagaland submitted that the charges against the accused are serious and there are materials to show that strong prima facie case is there against him. Mr. Kevi further submitted that there is no denying of the fact that the accused is the one who appeared in the video and there are persons who have given statements that [he voice is also his. Lastly, the P.P. submitted that the accused being a person of great influence there is a strong apprehension that if he is release on bail he is most likely to influence the course of the investigation by tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Therefore, this is not the right time to release him on bail. The learned P.P. went on to submit that the video recording of the statement of the accused is in public domain and the same has been sent for expert opinion to ascertain as to whether the statement made therein was by the accused or not as such investigation is still going on. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and seriousness of the offences charged against the accused and the contents of the case diary of the FIR case. The offences charged against the accused, no doubt, are serious in nature as they carry penalty or punishment ranging from not below 3 years to life imprisonment and, since they involved public works and trust of public on a public servant. Further, the case diary reveals that the person who was seen and heard speaking the incriminating words in the video was none other than the accused has been testified by witnesses. As such, it can very well be concluded that there is a strong prima facie case against the accused. Further, the case diary reveals that the person who was seen and heard speaking the incriminating words in the video was none other than the accused has been testified by witnesses. As such, it can very well be concluded that there is a strong prima facie case against the accused. Accordingly, the plea of the learned counsel, representing the petitioner that, since it has not been ascertain so far that, the voice heard in the video and made to appear as that of the accused is, in fact, that of the accused, no prima facie case has been made out is dismissed. 8. It appears from the case diary that since it is a case where corruption charge is involved, a wide ranging investigation has been taken up, so as to ascertain whether there are materials to substantiate the charges. For such investigation, some time longer is always required. Therefore, this court is of the view that further custody of the accused is required. 9. The fact that the accused is a person holding a high position in such organization as NHIDCL may of course be a reason to believe that he is not likely to abscond during the pendency of the investigation or trial but, the fact that he holds such important position can be a reason for having an apprehension that he is likely to use his position to influence the course of the investigation cannot be totally ignored. As stated above, the investigation has been taken up in a wide ranging manner due to the nature of the charges. In such investigation a number of people and institutions are likely to be interrogated and investigated upon. The accused being a highly placed person is, therefore, likely to use his position to influence the course of the investigation. 10. Further, it appears from the case diary that the investigation is going on full swing and it is at a crucial stage. Therefore, release of the accused on bail, at this stage is likely to jeopardize the smooth progress of the investigation. In view of the above stated reasons, this court has come to the conclusion that this is not the right time to release the accused. Accordingly, the prayer for his release on bail is rejected and the petition is dismissed.