JUDGMENT : Petitioners, in all the aforesaid petitions, have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.PC), in case FIR No.23 of 2021, dated 3.3.2021, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), in Police Station East, Shimla. 2. Status Report stands filed, wherein it is stated that Shri Navin Kumar Patial, Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Panthaghati (Shimla), presented an application/to the police, stating therein that on 8.12.2015, petitioners Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar approached State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (now after merger, State Bank of India) and made a request for grant of Home Loan of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of property, and that request of these petitioners was considered by the Bank and the Bank agreed to grant Home Loan on the terms and conditions as stipulated in the Sanction Letter. Thereafter, in order to secure the loan, these petitioners mortgaged their property and deposited original title document, i.e. Sale Deed, registered vide registration No.2698, vide which equitable mortgage has been created, and the bank sanctioned the land and asked these two petitioners to execute registered mortgage deed also, on which they deposited mortgage deed registered vide registration No.8890. When bank official visited the property, he found that the borrowers had sold all the flats in the property and same was confirmed by the Bank’s Empanelled Advocate in his title investigation report that said sale deed was not found registered with sub Registrar, Shimla. 3. It is stated in the Status Report that the aforesaid two petitioners had also approached the aforesaid Bank, on 15.6.2015, and made a request/applied for grant of Home Loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for completion/finishing of semi-finished house, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose supplied and deposited mortgage deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar Theog, vide Registration No.479, but, on inquiry, the said mortgage deed was found to be forged and fabricated document. 4. 4. It has been stated that petitioner Sanjay, in connivance with petitioners Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, on 28.12.2016, approached the aforesaid bank for grant of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of entire RCC frame structure of Ground Floor and Parking Floor of under construction building, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose petitioner Sanjay deposited original sale deed with the bank, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No.2580 and also deposited Mortgage Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Shimla vide Registration No.1625, but, on inquiry, it was found that the property mentioned in the deeds was not in the name of the borrower and it was also confirmed on inquiry from office of Patwari. 5. It is further stated in the Status Report that petitioner Pankaj also, in connivance with petitioners Jitender Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, approached the aforesaid Bank on 23.2.2017 and applied for grant of loan of Rs.20,00,000/- for purchase of semi-finished flat, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose petitioner Pankaj deposited original Sale Deed, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No.146 and thereafter also deposited Mortgage Deed, registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla, vide registration No.1676, but, on inquiry by the Empanelled Advocate of the Bank, it was found that neither the Sale Deed belonged to petitioner Pankaj nor the Mortgage Deed was in existence. 6. It is also in the Status Report that petitioner Sanjeev Kumar had also approached the aforesaid Bank on 20.9.2016, for grant of Home Loan of Rs.20,00,000/-, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose deposited original title deed with the Bank, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar Solan, vide registration on 2341, and, on inquiry, it was found that the property mentioned in the deed was not in the name of petitioner Sanjeev Kumar and that the document was found to have been false, fabricated and forged, prepared to cheat the Bank. 7. It is stated in the Status Report that the petitioners, in order to cheat the bank of its public money, prepared false and fabricated documents. 8. 7. It is stated in the Status Report that the petitioners, in order to cheat the bank of its public money, prepared false and fabricated documents. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid application/complaint of the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Panthaghati (Shimla), FIR in question has been registered. 9. Petitioners had also applied for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla, and after obtaining interim bail, they had joined investigation, but said bail application was dismissed on 20.4.2021. Thereafter, the present applications have been filed and the petitioners have again joined the investigation. 10. As per Status Report, during interrogation, the petitioners disclosed that they are relatives of each other and are doing business of construction and selling of buildings and they were procuring loans on the basis of fabricated documents and such documents were got prepared by them through one Amit Kumar, but they did not disclose the permanent address of Amit Kumar but disclosed his mobile number only. 11. As per Status Report, on the basis of information collected, search of Amit Kumar was made in Tutu (Shimla) and during that search it came in the light that Amit Kumar had expired on 7.2.2019 at Zirakpur. According to Status Report, petitioners have concocted a false story to save themselves and necessity for their custodial interrogation has been pressed, in order to elucidate information with respect to fabrication of documents and Revenue Stamps and other persons involved in commission of crime. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the investigation in the matter is almost complete and the petitioners are not required for interrogation, and, therefore, keeping in view that bail is rule and jail is exception, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioners are the residents of State of Himachal Pradesh, there is no likelihood of their fleeing from justice, and in case they are released on bail, they undertake to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed upon them. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners are involved in the case of cheating a Bank, by submitting documents to the Bank, which, on inquiry were found to be forged and fabricated, and thereby they have cheated the Bank of huge public money. 13. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners are involved in the case of cheating a Bank, by submitting documents to the Bank, which, on inquiry were found to be forged and fabricated, and thereby they have cheated the Bank of huge public money. He has also submitted that in case the petitioners are released on bail, there is every possibility of their fleeing from justice and it would be very difficult to apprehend them. So, the learned Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 14. Undoubtedly, as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner, bail is rule and jail is exception. But, at the same time, this rule does not mean that in every case bail is to be granted in all eventualities. The Supreme Court, in its various pronouncements, as also referred by this Court in State of Sandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in 2019(1) Shim.LC 263 , has culled out various factors and parameters to be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the bail applications, which also include denial of bail based on those factors and principles. The general rule ‘bail but not jail’ cannot be used as a weapon to render the provisions, empowering the Court to reject the bail redundant, and/or as a guiding factor to enlarge an accused on bail, in every case. 15. The general rule ‘bail but not jail’ cannot be used as a weapon to render the provisions, empowering the Court to reject the bail redundant, and/or as a guiding factor to enlarge an accused on bail, in every case. 15. The Supreme Court has considered the right to pre-arrest bail, provided under Section 438 Cr.PC, and factors and parameters to be taken into consideration by the Courts, while accepting or rejecting a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.PC, in numerous cases, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 ; Savitri Agarwal and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 8 SCC 325 ; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694 ; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, (2016) 1 SCC 152 ; Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281 of 2017 and 7282 of 2017, decided on 19.1.2020, titled as Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 ; Fekan Yadav v. Satendr Yadav alias Boss Yadav alias Satendra Kumar and others, (2017) 16 SCC 775 ; Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 6 SCC 571 ; and Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 12 SCC 20 }, which have been referred in Freed and other connected matters v. State, reported in 2020(4) Shim.LC 1614. 16. This Court in Freed’s case supra has observed as under: “17. Fundamental of criminal jurisprudence postulates ‘presumption of innocence’, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty and grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in prison or in correction home, during trial, is an exception and bail is not to be withheld as a punishment and it is also necessary to consider whether the accused is a first time offender or has been accused of other offences and, if so, nature of such offence and his or her general conduct also requires consideration. Character of the complainant and accused is also a relevant factor. Character of the complainant and accused is also a relevant factor. Reiterating these principles, the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , has also observed that however it should not be understood to mean that bail should be granted in every case, and the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the Judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. 18. While considering a bail application, it would be necessary on the part of the Court to see culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of organized crime, either directly or indirectly, and also to consider the question from the angle as to whether applicant was possessed of the requisite mens rea. Interim bail, pending investigation, can be granted, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. ……….. 21. Dealing with the provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC, the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 , has observed as under: “Grant of Anticipatory bail in exceptional cases 69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the prearrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. 70. On behalf of the appellant, much arguments were advanced contending that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy. 70. On behalf of the appellant, much arguments were advanced contending that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that unless custodial interrogation is warranted, in the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the right conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. "....except according to a procedure prescribed by law." In State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC 221 , the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and held as under: (SCC p.226, para 7) "7. ........We find it difficult to accept the contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed : ‘We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised.’ In the light of this recommendation, Section 438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution. And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21." (emphasis supplied) 72. We are conscious of the fact that the legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 73. The learned Solicitor General has submitted that depending upon the facts of each case, it is for the investigating agency to confront the accused with the material, only when the accused is in custody. It was submitted that the statutory right under Section 19 of PMLA has an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power of arrest by the investigating officer. Submitting that custodial interrogation is a recognised mode of interrogation which is not only permissible but has been held to be more effective, the learned Solicitor General placed reliance upon State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 ; Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 1 SCC 146 ; and Directorate of Enforcement v. Hassan Ali Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 684 . 74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.189, para 6) "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information’s and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303 , it was held as under: (SCC p.313, para 19) "19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code." 76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. 77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 , the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.386, para 19) "19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 .)"” 17. In Mangal Singh Negi v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2021(2) Shim.LC 860, this Court observed as under: “22. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during investigation, as discussed supra, is duly prescribed in Cr.P.C. 23. At the same time, Cr.P.C. also contains Chapter XXXIII, providing provision as to bail and bonds, which empowers the Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court to grant bail to a person arrested by the Police/Investigating Officer in accordance with provisions contained in this Chapter. This Chapter also contains Section 438 empowering the Court to issue directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending his arrest. Normally, such bail is called as “Anticipatory Bail”. Scope and ambit of law on Anticipatory Bail has been elucidated by the Courts time and again. 24. Initially, provision for granting Anticipatory Bail by the court was not in the Cr.P.C., but on the recommendation of the Law commission of India in its 41st Report, the Commission had pointed out necessity for introducing a set provision in the Cr.P.C. enabling the High Court and Court of Session to grant Anticipatory Bail, mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. It was also observed by the Commission that with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency was showing signs and steady increase and further that where there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty, while on bail, there seems no justification to require him to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. On the basis of these recommendations, provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. was included in Cr.P.C. as an antidote for preventing arrest and detention in false case. Therefore, interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in larger public interest, has been done by the Courts by reading it with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to keep arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on personal liberty at bay. The essence of mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the basic concept of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 25. Section 438 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court either to reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail, at the first instance, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the factors stated in sub-section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in case of issuance of an interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail the application shall be finally heard by the Court after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Police/ Prosecution. Section 438 Cr.P.C. prescribes certain factors which are to be considered at the time of passing interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail amongst others, but no such factors have been prescribed for taking into consideration at the time of final hearing of the case. Undoubtedly, those factors which are necessary to be considered at the time of granting interim bail are also relevant for considering the bail application at final stage. 26. A balance has to be maintained between the right of personal liberty and the right of Investigating Agency to investigate and to arrest an offender for the purpose of investigation, keeping view various parameters as elucidated by the court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal & others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 cases and also in other pronouncements referred by learned counsel for CBI.” 18. Considering the factors and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.PC, as propounded by the Supreme Court as referred by this Court in Freed’s case (supra) and various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court, referred supra, but without commenting on merits of evidence produced before me, I find that it is not a fit case for continuation of bail under Section 438 Cr.PC. 19. 19. Needless to say that petitioners have a right to approach the Court, under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular bail. In such eventuality, such application shall be considered on the basis of its own merits, within parameters relevant for adjudication of that. 20. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore, shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application. Petition is dismissed and disposed of.