JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge them on bail in connection with FIR No.05(03)2022 under Sections 403/409/420/120-B/468/471/477A/34 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act on the file of CB Police Station. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 2.3.2022, the Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch reported that a possible fraud in the Start Up Manipur Government Scheme was committed by some officials of Punjab National Bank, namely Singshit Khupden, Manager in collusion with other persons. The Start Up Scheme was introduced by the State Government in 2018 with an aim to enable unemployed persons to take up new ventures with subsidies ranging from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.30 lakh. The loan amount is to be sanctioned first by the bank (70% component) and after that, the Government will release 30% component as subsidy. The borrower has to open a loan account and the loan amount will be credited to the said account. On 5.11.2021, the Bank of Baroda, the Nodal Bank of the Start Up Scheme deposited a sum of Rs.1,77,09,000/- to Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch with respect to 7 approved beneficiaries. However, without opening of loan accounts, the subsidy amounts were deposited in the personal accounts of the beneficiaries. This irregularity was detected in the follow up meeting and hence, FIR No.5(3)2022 under Sections 403/409/420/120-B/468/471/477A/34 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act was registered against the accused persons. 3. Mr. P. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, who have been made to suffer bare allegations of being involved in the commission of the offences aforesaid without any cogent material and that no prima facie case has been made out against them till date. He would submit that the then Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch was already released on bail. 4. The learned counsel further submitted that out of five accused arrested in connection with the alleged offence, three have been released on bail and only the petitioners remain in judicial custody and that they being similarly situated persons are also entitled to be released on bail. Earlier, the petitioners filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.73 of 2022 before the Special Judge, Imphal West and by the order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail petition. Earlier, the petitioners filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.73 of 2022 before the Special Judge, Imphal West and by the order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail petition. According to learned counsel, while rejecting the bail petition of the petitioners, the learned Special Judge recorded only mechanical reason that there is no additional ground for granting bail to the petitioners. The reasoning given by the learned Special Judge is vague and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are in custody from 18.5.2022 and since best part of investigation completed, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 5. Per contra, Mr. H. Samarjit, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation reveals that the petitioners hatched a plan with the then Branch Manager Singsit to swindle beneficiaries subsidy amounts without the full knowledge of the beneficiaries. It was planned that the Manager will take care the Bank side and the second petitioner Ibohanbi will take care the remaining sides. The Branch Manager has loan sanctioning power of Rs.10 lakh only. The Manager and the arrested accused, including the petitioners conspired to misappropriate the beneficiaries subsidy amounts and committed criminal offence. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that 4 different beneficiaries from whom money were transferred to M/S SOS Traders dealing in different businesses like poultry, rice mill, embroidery and plastic waste recycle. So the money transferred to M/S SOS Traders is not for supplying of equipment to various enterprises. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor then submitted that both the petitioners work for the Livelihood Business Incubator Project of District Industries Centres (DIC), Imphal West and both are member of one NGO, namely Leima Women's Welfare Association, which signed an MOU with DIC, Imphal West to implement Livelihood Business Incubator Project. The Livelihood Business Incubator Project was undertaken in all the Districts of Manipur under the Ministry of MSME and the LBI was not allowed to do any other activities other than imparting skill development training for self-employment. So the petitioners were not authorized to help the beneficiaries in running around for the Manipur Start Up program. 8. The Livelihood Business Incubator Project was undertaken in all the Districts of Manipur under the Ministry of MSME and the LBI was not allowed to do any other activities other than imparting skill development training for self-employment. So the petitioners were not authorized to help the beneficiaries in running around for the Manipur Start Up program. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor lastly submitted that the loan sanction letters for 6 beneficiaries sent by the Punjab National Bank, Kanglatombi Branch to the Planning Department to claim their subsidies were obtained by fraud and that the involvement of other people/department in this crime are being investigated into. Thus, taking into consideration of the gravity of the crime, releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage may hamper with the investigation of the case and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners were arrested on 18.5.2022 and since no progress in investigation into the guilt of the petitioners, there is no need for further custodial detention of the petitioners during the pendency of investigation, as active phase of investigation into the guilt of the petitioners was already over. 11. It appears that the first petitioner is the Proprietor of SOS Traders which is a firm dealing with supplier and selling of machineries to the beneficiaries who are benefited by the Government Scheme. He was engaged by the DIC, Imphal West as service provider cum computer operator under the Livelihood Business Incubation Centre at Lamphelpat. Being an authorized service provider of Manipur Startup Scheme, he used to assist the applicant of the scheme. As service provider, many applicants of the said scheme approached him at their office at DIC and after providing all required documents, he helped the beneficiaries to submit the application through online to the Planning Department. After selecting the lists of beneficiaries, he has been approached by the beneficiaries for buying machineries as per their respective project. The second petitioner M Ibohanbi Singh was working as computer operator and assisting the online form submission works of the first petitioner. 12. After selecting the lists of beneficiaries, he has been approached by the beneficiaries for buying machineries as per their respective project. The second petitioner M Ibohanbi Singh was working as computer operator and assisting the online form submission works of the first petitioner. 12. The specific plea of the petitioners is that the first petitioner has no knowledge about the transaction between the bank and beneficiaries and he is neither beneficiary, nor a bank employee. The second petitioner assisted the first petitioner for online submission of forms. 13. As could be seen from the records, the co-accused, including the Bank Manager, namely Singsit Khupeden of Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch were already released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. 14. When the petitioners approached the learned Special Judge (PC), Imphal West by filing Cril. Misc. (B) No.73 of 2022, the learned Special Judge, dismissed the petition on 8.7.2022 by observing as under: '11. Firstly, there is no additional ground for granting bail in this application. Secondly, from the medical status reports of the accused persons, it is apparent that the illnesses of the accused persons are not that serious which are endangered to their life and the illness can be treated by medications. And lastly, it has been submitted that another two co-accused persons has been identified. 12. From the above findings and discussions, this court does not find attracting reasons for granting bail to the accused persons. 13. Hence, this bail application is rejected and dispose of.' 15. Before filing of Cril. Misc. (B) No.73 of 2022, the petitioners and other accused filed Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.50, 51, 52 and 53 of 2022 praying to enlarge them on bail under Section 436 and 437 Cr.P.C. pending investigation. By the order dated 27.5.2022, the learned Special Judge, dismissed the bail petitions of the petitioners herein, being Cril. Misc. (B) Nos.50 and 52 of 2022 and granted bail to other two accused. While rejecting the bail petitions of the petitioners, the learned Special Judge held as under: '17. Also, perused the materials on record. At the stage of investigation, accused Ibohanbi, and the Bank Manager namely Singshit seemed out to be the main accused persons in the case. Olish is also involved in the conspiracy as the transactions are done through his firm account. Also, perused the materials on record. At the stage of investigation, accused Ibohanbi, and the Bank Manager namely Singshit seemed out to be the main accused persons in the case. Olish is also involved in the conspiracy as the transactions are done through his firm account. The allegation against Maipaksana is for retaining high cut of service charge, but materials are lacking for involvement in conspiracy. Rockey is alleged to introduce Ibohanbi to the Bank Manager and initiated payment as approved by the Manager, but there is no allegation for participating in the conspiracy and taking shares of the subsidies from the beneficiaries'. 16. Admittedly, there is no prima facie proof to show that the petitioners, in conspiracy with other accused, swindled the subsidy of the beneficiaries. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved only at the conclusion of the trial and at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners have involved in the alleged offence. 17. At this juncture, by relying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : 2013 Legal Eagle (SC) 372, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that 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. 18. In Nimmagadda Prasad, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '24. 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 itself as to whether there is a genie 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.' 19. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in 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 charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behavior, 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. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. 20. In the instant case, nothing has been produced to show that if bail granted to the petitioners, they will use their liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. On the other hand, in their petitions, in paragraph 13, the petitioners have clearly stated that they shall not hamper or tamper with the investigation of the case. Further, on a perusal of the complaint given by the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi Branch, the complainant has not stated the names of the petitioners and the instant FIR has also been registered only against Sh. Singsit Khupden, Manager and others. Thus, the petitioners are not named accused and only after registration of the FIR and on interrogation, the respondent police implicated the petitioners into the crime. Singsit Khupden, Manager and others. Thus, the petitioners are not named accused and only after registration of the FIR and on interrogation, the respondent police implicated the petitioners into the crime. Therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the petitioners have committed the crime alleged against them. The opinion of the learned Special Judge that the petitioners are also involved in the conspiracy is without any material proof. 21. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners cannot be penalized merely because the investigation reveals their involvement. The circumstantial material without any proximate and relevant lead of involvement would not entitle the prosecution to detain the petitioners for long and also without any evidence, the detention of the petitioners is against the constitutional right and liberty, when the co-accused that too the alleged prime accused, namely the then Bank Manager of Punjab National Bank, Kanglatongbi released on bail. 22. In State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should be certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody (as stated in Para 2 of his counter-affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr.Manettee in Charles Dicken's novel A Tale of Two Cities, who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille.' 23. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 : 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 1673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. In Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281 : 2008 Legal Eagle (SC) 1673, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: '7. Personal liberty is fundamental and can be circumscribed only by some process sanctioned by law. Liberty of a citizen is undoubtedly important but this is to balance with the security of the community. A balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. It must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It has to dovetail two conflicting demands, namely, on the one hand the requirements of the society for being shielded from the hazards of being exposed to the misadventures of a person alleged to have committed a crime; and on the other, the fundamental canon of criminal jurisprudence viz. the presumption of innocence of an accused till he is found guilty. Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint, the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have. (See A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras)' 24. It is well settled that while considering an application for bail, detailed discussion of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits is to be avoided. This requirement stems from the desirability that no party should have the impression that his case has been pre-judged. Existence of a prima facie case is only to be considered. Elaborate analysis or exhaustive exploration of the merits is not required. 25. Where the offence is of serious nature, the question of grant of bail has to be decided keeping in view the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and amongst others the larger interest of the public. 26. As stated supra, the allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved by way of oral and documentary evidence and thus, at this stage, an elaborate analysis of the merits of the allegations cannot be gone into. Only on the ground of slow progress shown by the respondent police, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. Only on the ground of slow progress shown by the respondent police, this Court has noted the merits in order to consider the bail application. This Court, in the earlier paragraphs of this order, only discussed that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are to be proved after conclusion of the trial and that apart the petitioners were not named accused in the FIR. 27. It has been time and again held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial, for long, cannot be regarded as "reasonable, just, fair" so as to be in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Detaining the under-trial prisoners in custody for an indefinite period is a gross violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 28. It is settled law that the grant of bail ought not to be denied only on the perceived apprehension by the Court that the accused, if restored to liberty, will tamper with the evidence. There must be some prima facie evidence on record or reasonable and justifiable grounds to believe that in case the benefit of bail is extended to an accused, he is going to misuse his liberty or he would create conditions which are not conducive to hold a fair trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has confirmed that "bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive but is meant to secure presence of the accused during the trial. 29. When the under-trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated. Every person, detained or arrested, is entitled to speedy investigation and trial. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 30. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the best part of investigation in respect of the petitioners is over. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 18.5.2022. Merely the fact that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be denied bail. 30. In the instant case, as admitted by the prosecution, the best part of investigation in respect of the petitioners is over. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioners are in custody from 18.5.2022. The primary purpose of ball in a criminal case are to relieve the accused of imprisonment, to relieve the State of the burden of detaining him, pending the trial, and at the same time, to keep the accused constructively in the custody of the Court, whether before or after conviction, to assure that he will submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and be in attendance thereon whenever his presence is required. 31. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 : 2011 Legal Eagle (SC) 973, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: '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.' 32. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court held that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception. The Courts have also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliay, (1977) 4 SCC 308 : 1977 Legal Eagle (SC) 276, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held: '2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. 3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner is this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court; his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betrary the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain. The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baren once every fortnight.' 34. The principles relating to grant or refusal of bail have been stated in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported at (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 Legal Eagle (SC) 252. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar, supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly, where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the Court granting ball to consider among other circumstances and the following facts also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 35. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 : 2018 Legal Eagle (SC) 68, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences, but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correctional home is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society. 36. Thus, it is clear that grant or denial of bail is entirely the discretion of the Judge considering the bail application, but even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by the High Courts in the country. 37. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 38. 37. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by a Judge while dealing with the ball application. Even if the offence is a serious offence, requires a humane treatment by the Court, humane treatment to all including an accused is requirement of law. 38. As stated supra, the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West dismissed the bail applications of the petitioners vide order dated 27.5.2022 holding that the second accused and the Bank Manager namely Singsit seems to be the main accused in this case and the first petitioner Olish was also involved in the conspiracy as the transactions are done through his firm account. Subsequently, when the petitioners filed Cril. Misc. (b) Case No.73 of 2022, by the order dated 8.7.2022, the learned Special Judge, held that there is no additional ground for granting bail and from the medical status reports of the petitioners, it is apparent that the illnesses of the petitioners are not that serious which are endangered to their life and the illness can be treated by medications. Admittedly, such findings of the learned Sessions Judge are without any material proof. Since the allegations levelled against the petitioners would involve oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge ought not to have arrived at such finding. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient bonds and they are ready to co-operate with the investigation and also they will abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 39. In view of the undertaking given by the petitioners that they will not attempt to influence any witness or to attempt to tamper any evidence that may be relevant in the present case and to face the complete trial and not flee from justice and furthermore, as admitted by the prosecution, the best part of investigation was completed and also considering incarceration of the petitioners from 18.5.2022 and co-accused were already released on bail, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 40. 40. Accordingly, Bail Application No.15 of 2022 is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with the FIR No.05(03)2022 under Sections 403/409/420/120-B/468/471/477A/34 IPC and Section 13 of PC Act on the file of the CB PS, subject to the petitioners each furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two local sureties each of the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge (PC), Imphal West with the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall not leave the place of their residences without permission of the Court and shall ordinarily reside at a place of their respective residences and the complete address of such places shall be furnished to the learned Special Judge (PC), Imphal West at the time of release. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent police weekly once i.e. every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. (iii) If the petitioners have passport, they shall also surrender the same to learned Special Judge (PC), Imphal West (iv) The petitioners shall not contact nor visit nor threaten nor offer any inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence nor otherwise indulge in any act or omission that would prejudice the proceedings in the matter. (vi) The petitioners are directed to co-operate the investigation and as and when required by the investigating officer, they shall appear before him. (vii) The petitioners shall not commit similar offence. (viii) It is clarified that if the petitioners misuses the liberty or violate any of the conditions imposed upon them, the prosecution shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail. (ix) Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of the present bail application. (x) The respondent police authorities are directed to expedite the investigation and take necessary further steps in accordance with law.