JUDGMENT Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J. CRM-9463-2024 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the accompanying affidavit along with document is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main case FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 18 27.12.2023 Vigilance Bureau Ludhiana, District Ludhiana, Punjab 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Section 120B IPC and 7, 8 of PC Act, 1988 added later on) 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC (Section 120B IPC and 7, 8 of PC Act, 1988 added later on) The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 21 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and are also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, if any, and within fifteen days undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that custodial interrogation and pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4. The state's counsel opposes the bail and states that considering the nature of allegations, the petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary. 5. Facts of the case are being extracted from the status report dated 15.02.2024 filed by concerned Dy SP which reads as follows:- 3) That the present case FIR No. 18 dated 27.12.2023 under section 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and under section 7, 8 prevention of corruption act, 1988 as amended by PC (Amendment) act 2018 has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons as per the Enquiry conducted in respect of complaint no. 109/2023-Sangrur, moved by Gurtej Singh etc. Copy of FIR is already attached with the petition as Annexure P-l. 4) That during the course of enquiry, it was transpired that Gurtej Singh, Labh Singh and Darshan Singh were owners of the land measuring 149 Kanal 18 Marla situated at Village Balran B comprised in Khata No. 279/460-466 Salam Khewat No. 31 as per Jamabandi for the year 2013- 14. On 06.08.2018 Dharam Raj Patwari (Co-accused) entered mutation no. On 06.08.2018 Dharam Raj Patwari (Co-accused) entered mutation no. 10808 with regard to the transfer of land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marla out of Khewat No. 279 in favour of Balwant Singh S/o Dalip Singh. However, Dharam Raj Patwari did not make any report in this regard in the Roznamcha whereas he was required to make the report in the Roznamcha and was also required to get signatures of the parties, who got effected the transfer of land. The mutation was also required to be signed by both the parties, but it bears signatures of Balwant Singh only whereas the signatures of Gurtej Singh and his brothers are not there on the mutation. 5) That during enquiry it was also transpired that Gurtej Singh did not transfer any land in favour of Balwant Singh or his family members nor said Balwant Singh has entered into any agreement with Gurtej Singh with regard to the transfer of land nor Balwant Singh has any land at Village Raisar Jakhal (Haryana). Infact, Balwant Singh is in possession of land measuring 22 Kanal 08 Marla situated at Village Balran since the year 1966, but he does not have any document qua his ownership over the said land. Balwant Singh approached Dharam Raj Patwari in order to get transferred the ownership of the land in his name and Raj Patwari demanded a No. 287 sum of Rs. 10 Lac as bribe from him, but the matter was settled for an amount of Rs. 7 Lac. On this, Balwant Singh withdrew Rs. 7 Lac from his bank account and handed over the same to Dharam Raj Patwari. 6) That during enquiry it was also transpired that with regard 6 to the transfer of land of complainant Gurtej Singh, Dharam Raj Patwari (co-accused) entered forged mutation no. 10808 on the basis of fake and fabricated exchange deed dated 14.05.2008 in the revenue record of Village Ballran-B, and the said forged mutation was compared by the Present Petitioner being Kanongo having additional charge of said post as per order dated 16.11.2018 (Annexure P-2) without calling the concerned parties in respect of said mutation no. 10808 and without inspecting and examining their documents including the alleged exchange deed dated 14.05.2008 which was also relied upon by his co-accused Dharam Raj Patwari. 10808 and without inspecting and examining their documents including the alleged exchange deed dated 14.05.2008 which was also relied upon by his co-accused Dharam Raj Patwari. The petitioner on the other hand compared the said mutation in pursuance of criminal connivance of his co-accused Dharam Raj Patwari and got sanctioned the said mutation from co-accused Sandhura Singh Tehsildar on 15.05.2019. Copy of Mutation is already attached with petition as (Annexure P-3). It is pertinent to mention here that for the said illegal work, Balwant Singh had paid bribe money of Rs. 7 Lac to Dharam Raj Patwari co-accused of the petitioner and the said bribe money was paid by Balwant Singh after getting the same withdrawn from his account of Co-operative Bank Moonak. 7) That during enquiry it was transpired that after sanctioning mutation, its copy (Parat Sarkar) along with requisite documents were to be submitted with the SADAR Kanungo Munak, but said documents were not submitted with the SADAR Kanungo Munak. In this regard, during investigation of present FIR, statement of Surinderpal Singh additional Naib Sadar Kanongo, office Deputy Commissioner Sangrur has been recorded and he has also produced the copy of Parat Sarkar in which there is no reference/entry with regard to Mutation No. 10808, rather on the other hand, entry with regard to said mutation was fraudulently made in Parat Patwar by Dharam Raj Patwari on the basis of exchange deed dated 14.05.2008 and said mutation was compared by the Present Petitioner being INDIA Kanongo and sanctioned by Sandhura Singh Tehsildar. It is pertinent to mention here that no exchange deed dated 14.05.2008 was ever executed between Gurtej Singh etc. and Balwant Singh. Copy of statement of Surinderpal Singh additional Naib Sadar Kanongo, office Deputy Commissioner Sangrur is attached herewith as Annexure R-l/T. 8) That as per the guidelines of the Revenue Department, the mutations are required to be prepared through online mode, but mutation no. 10808 was prepared by Dharam Raj Patwari by typing the same on the computer. On 09.03.2021, Dharam Raj Patwari was apprehanded red handed while accepting bribe by the Vigilance Bureau Patiala and after his arrest, the charge of post of Patwari of Village Balran-A and Village Balran-B was given To the present Petitioner Mithu Singh Patwari on 18.03.2021. (Annexure P-4). 9) That the present petitioner Mithu Singh being Patwari of Village Ballran-B, made tampering/editing in respect of khewat no. (Annexure P-4). 9) That the present petitioner Mithu Singh being Patwari of Village Ballran-B, made tampering/editing in respect of khewat no. 309 in Jama bandi for the year 2018-19 on computer on 30.04.2021 and reduced the share of Gurtej Singh etc. from 75/201 to 318/1499 and due to the said tampering/editing land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marla of Labh Singh, Gurtej Singh etc. was shown to be transferred in the name of Balwant Singh and by doing said editing/tampering Balwant Singh became owner of land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marlas. With regard to the said tempering/editing in the computerized record made by the Present petitioner, the written report has been given by Deputy Director, Punjab Land Records Society Jalandhar vide letter no./P.L.R.S./Programming Branch/226 dated 13.02.2024. Copy of letter is attached herewith as Annexure R-2/T. 10) That it was also transpired that the page No. 134 to 138 of Jamabandi register over which khewat no. 309/498 to 484 relating to Gurtej Singh etc. was mentioned, the said page number 134 to 138 were removed from the Jambandi register (Parat Patwar) and in place of said pages, new pages after taking out their prints were affixed in the Jamabandi register (parat patwar) and said new pages are not having any page Number, rather on the other hand the other pages of jambandi register are having continuing computerized serial numbers. On 07.05.2021 the Present Petitioner Mithu Singh Patwari made the said tampered Jamabandi record live on the website of revenue department and said land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marlas was further transferred by Balwant Singh in favour of his grand son Balraj Singh by executing and registering sale deed Vide Vasika No. 53 dated 26.04.2022 and mutation no. 11123 was also sanctioned in the name of Balraj Singh. 11) That it is submitted that when Gurtej Singh came to know about the transfer of his land in the name of Balwant Singh in the revenue record, then he made a complaint with the Revenue Department, on which, Bhagwan Singh Patwari (co-accused) had prepared Farad Badar No. 16 dated 18.07. 2022, but he did not make any reference in the Farad Badar about the subsequent transfer of land belonging to Gurtej Singh by Balwant Singh in favour of his grandson Balraj Singh as well as with regard to mutation no 11123 sanctioned in favour of grandson Balraj Singh. 2022, but he did not make any reference in the Farad Badar about the subsequent transfer of land belonging to Gurtej Singh by Balwant Singh in favour of his grandson Balraj Singh as well as with regard to mutation no 11123 sanctioned in favour of grandson Balraj Singh. In this way, Dharam Raj Patwari, Petitioner Mithu Singh Patwari, Sandhura Singh Tehsildar, Bhagwan Das Patwari and Balwant Singh, in connivance with one another defrauded Gurtej Singh etc. and caused wrongful loss to them by getting wrongful gain to themselves." 6. Counsel for the petitioner argued that he had never tampered any computer revenue records and the ID does not belong to him. He has given an additional affidavit dated 23.02.2024 which reads as follows:- "3. That in the affidavit dated 15.02.2024 it has been alleged that in para no.9 that petitioner has made tempering/editing in respect of khewat no. 309 in Jamabandi for the year of 2018-19 on computer on dated 30.04.2021 and reduced the share of Gurtej Singh etc. from 75/201 to 318/1499 and due to said tempering/editing land measuring 25 Kanal 15 Marla of Labh Singh, Gurtej Singh etc. was shown to be transferred in the name of Balwant Singh. As per letter dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure R-2/T) the said tempering editing has been done by petitioner on 30.04.2021 for his User-ID 4. That it is respectfully submitted that the above said User-ID does not belongs to the petitioner and user ID of the petitioner was starting with the name of the petitioner when he was working as Patwari of village Ballran-B. The alleged tempering/editing in the computerized Jamabandi has never done by the petitioner. The investigating agency got the information of concerned User ID on 13.02.2024 through letter Annexure R-2/T whereas it had already indicted the petitioner in the FIR for such tempering in computerized Jamabandi without having any material for the same. 5. That the entire procedure of creating and using the User ID by the revenue staff is governed by the Fard Kendra Operational Manual-2016. As per clause 5.1.1 of this Manual the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be Chief Administrator (CA) of the System and he will maintain the Password Maintain Register in format Annexure-XII wherein user name, date of creation of password etc. will be maintained. As per clause 5.1.1 of this Manual the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be Chief Administrator (CA) of the System and he will maintain the Password Maintain Register in format Annexure-XII wherein user name, date of creation of password etc. will be maintained. Clause 5.4 of this Manual deals with user management and it provides that Assistant System Manager (ASM) is responsible for creating all user accounts and users will be created through Bio Metric authentication and register to be maintained as per Annexure-XII of this Manual. Therefore the entire dispute qua the USER-ID can be set at rest with the perusal of register maintained as per Annexure-XII of the Fard Kendra Manual but the same has been suppressed by the investigating agency. The copy of Fard Kendra Operational Manual-2016 is annexed with this Affidavit as Annexure P-7. 6. That the petitioner has performed his duties in usual course and with utmost honesty and he has been falsely implicated in the present FIR." 7. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner never tempered any computerized revenue record. The alleged User ID disclosed in the reply of the State does not belongs to the petitioner. As per Fard Kendra Manual, the User IDs have to be created by Assistant System Manager who is in charge of the Fard Kendra and he has to maintain the register and the same has to be in the personal custody of SDM/Chief Administrator of Fard Kendra. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the investigating agency neither arrayed the Assistant System Manager as accused nor produced the copy of above said register in the Court to connect the petitioner with the present FIR. The petitioner has performed his duties in usual course of business which were assigned to him. 8. State counsel opposed the bail on the ground that the ID belongs to the petitioner and he tampered with the jamabandi and illegally sanctioned the mutation. 9. An analysis of the arguments and pleadings would lead to the following outcome. Complainant Gurtej Singh alleged that Dharam Raj Patwari has forged mutation based on fake and fabricated exchange deed and the petitioner had compared the said mutation being Kanungo without calling the parties in respect of said mutation and without inspecting and examining the documents thereof. The said order relates back to 16.11.2018 i.e. more than 05 years have passed. Complainant Gurtej Singh alleged that Dharam Raj Patwari has forged mutation based on fake and fabricated exchange deed and the petitioner had compared the said mutation being Kanungo without calling the parties in respect of said mutation and without inspecting and examining the documents thereof. The said order relates back to 16.11.2018 i.e. more than 05 years have passed. There is no specific allegation of how much money the petitioner had received for such wrong comparison and it remain undisputed that the petitioner had not entered the mutation but it was the Patwari who has done so. Regarding use of ID, the affidavit creates a doubt at this stage. On this ground, the petitioner has prima facie case for bail. In addition to this, counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of bribe are also against co-accused Dharam Raj Patwari. In para no.17 of the petition, petitioner explicitly mention that he would undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions which this Court imposes. 10. The petitioner is a first offender and, in the given allegation, without prejudice to the rights of the State, is entitled to interim bail subject to the compliance of all terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 11. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 , (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42 (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situation. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447 , (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might 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. 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 when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 , (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favours release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22 , (Para 6), Supreme Court held that 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, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 12. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020:INSC:106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013) 15 SCC 570 , Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation. 13. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 14. In Madhu Tanwar v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss. [21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate. 15. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms: (a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate. 15. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above, in the following terms: (a). Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator/SHO, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then in case of the non-availability of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, to any other nearest llaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer/court must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. OR (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned court a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favour of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioner to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under Section 437A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under Section 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. (d). The petitioner is to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number, (If available), when the court attesting the bonds thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 16. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 17. Petitioner to comply with their undertaking made in the bail petition, made before this court through counsel as reflected at the beginning of this order. If the petitioner fails to comply with any of such undertakings, then on this ground alone, the bail might be cancelled, and the victim/complainant may file any such application for the cancellation of bail, and the State shall file the said application. 18. The petitioner is directed not to keep more than one prepaid SIM, i.e.. one prepaid mobile phone number, till the conclusion of the trial: however, this restriction is only on prepaid SIMs [mobile numbers] and not on post-paid connections or landline numbers. The petitioner must comply with this condition within fifteen days of release from today. The concerned Dy SP shall also direct all the telecom service providers to deactivate all prepaid SIM cards and prepaid mobile numbers issued to the petitioner, except the one that is mentioned as the primary number/ default number linked with the AADHAAR card and further that till the no objection from the concerned SHO, the mobile service providers shall not issue second pre-paid SIM/ mobile number in the petitioner's name. Since, as on date, in India, there are only four prominent mobile service providers, namely BSNL, Airtel, Vodafone-ldea, and Reliance Jio, any other telecom service provider are directed to comply with the directions of the concerned Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, issued in this regard and disable all prepaid mobile phone numbers issued in the name of the petitioner, except the main number/default number linked with AADHAR, by taking such information from the petitioner's AADHAR details or any other source, for which they shall be legally entitled by this order. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of the case, whichever is earlier. In Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra. 2023 INSC 655 , [para 45], while granting bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2002, Supreme Court had directed imposition of the similar condition, which reads as follows, "(d) Both the appellants shall use only one Mobile Phone each, during the time they remain on bail and shall inform the Investigating Officer of the NIA, their respective mobile numbers." 19. During the trial's pendency, if the petitioner repeats or commits any offence where the sentence prescribed is more than seven years or violates any condition as stipulated in this order, it shall always be permissible to the respondent to apply for cancellation of this bail. It shall further be open for any investigating agency to bring it to the notice of the Court seized of the subsequent application that the accused was earlier cautioned not to indulge in criminal activities. Otherwise, the bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437A of the Cr.P.C., if not cancelled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions. 20. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this Court are to endeavour that the accused does not repeat the offence and to provide victim a sense of security. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. The courts while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed." 21. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands. 22. If the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioner may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. 23. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law. 24. In case the Investigator/Officer-in-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 25. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 26. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behaviour. 27. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.