ORDER : ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J. By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of Crime No. 4/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur on 17.01.2024 of the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the EOW has received a communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, prima facie a cognizable offence for commission of the offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) of IPC was made out and FIR was registered under Crime No. 04/2024. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is employed by the Prizm Holography for the last five years. Initially he was appointed for a salary of Rs. 25,000/- and gradually it increased to Rs. 50,000/-. The employer/company has engaged the applicant to maintain and manage data. The applicant has been arrested on 09.07.2024 by the police of ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur for the alleged offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the applicant while working as supervisor/operator/production manager in the M/s. Prism Holography Security Films Pvt. Limited Raipur unit was an accomplice and used to carry out the instructions and assisted in providing duplicate hologram due to which illegal liquor has been sold and therefore, the charge sheet has been filed on 26.09.2024 against the present applicant. It is alleged that on a confidential letter of Deputy Director, Hemant Gahlot having Sl. No,. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022/279 dated 11.07.2023, complaint has been registered by the respondent against one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate ie. Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and his associates namely Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and distillers of Country liquor, Excise Officials etc. No,. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022/279 dated 11.07.2023, complaint has been registered by the respondent against one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate ie. Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and his associates namely Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and distillers of Country liquor, Excise Officials etc. for taking commission from the distillery owners of country liquor namely M/s. CG Distillery Limited, M/s. Bhatia Wines Merchant Pvt. Ltd and Welcome distillery Pvt. Ltd. for supply of country made liquor and the same is described as Part A Offence. 4. Further the prosecution has bifurcated the offence in Part B offence inter alia alleging that the above named persons have created parallel mechanism for selling liquor. The liquor has been manufactured and sold off the record from the Government shops with the help of distillery owners, bottle supply agency and by manufacturing duplicate holograms from the year 2019 to 2023. It is further alleged that the Director of Prizm Hologram and Security Pvt. Limited namely Vidhu Gupta has supplied the duplicate hologram through its office at Raipur in which the present applicant was working as In charge and caused heavy loss to the State Exchequer. Further allegation is that the applicant is indulged in forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy and was having knowledge of pre-printed holograms and played a key role in facilitating duplicate holograms for their fraudulent use and offence in Part C, it has been alleged that the annual commission was paid to allow the distillers to operate in the State of CG. 5. The EOW has analyzed the information and the date shared by the Income Tax Department on the basis of which it is established that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. As per the investigation conducted by the EOW, liquor was divided into two categories namely, Country Liquor (CL) and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The country liquor is produced in the State of Chhattisgarh through three distilleries i.e. i) M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd. ii) M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and iii) M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Limited. 6. As per the investigation conducted by the EOW, liquor was divided into two categories namely, Country Liquor (CL) and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The country liquor is produced in the State of Chhattisgarh through three distilleries i.e. i) M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd. ii) M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. and iii) M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Limited. 6. Shri Yatin Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he had no intention nor criminal conspiracy with the main accused. It is submitted that the applicant has been made accused in the FIR registered by EOW, Raipur having registration No. 04/2024. Admittedly, the applicant is a paid employee drawing salary and native of UP and was cited as a witness in the UP FIR as well as in CG FIR. It is contended that the as per the charge sheet, the applicant is only acting on the instructions of the owner and he was not having the knowledge. The duplicate holograms were despatched from Noida, UP from where it comes to Raipur and onwards to the distilleries. The applicant used to transfer it and inform the persons where it was to be sent and sometimes he used to personally go and deliver as ordered by the owner Vidhu Gupta. Based on the said information, on 29.07.2024, after six months on 17.01.2024 an offence has been registered by the EOW. From 17th of January 2024, the applicant was neither called nor his statement was recorded but the moment Hon’ble Supreme Court quashed the ECIR on 12.04.2024, the applicant was arrested. Thereafter the bail petition was filed by the applicant in the said case, the applicant was arrested pursuant to the second ECIR on 12.04.2024. The applicant is in incarceration from 15th February 2024. 7. This ECIR came to be challenged and the FIR registered by the EOW and the Division Bench of this Court held that it is permissible. That order of the Division Bench came to be challenged before the Supreme Court. It is contended that the main person according to the counter is one Mr. Niranjan Das who was at the helm of the affairs and Commissioner(Excise), Government of Chhattisgarh. He stands protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The person who owns Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Limited stands protected by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is contended that the main person according to the counter is one Mr. Niranjan Das who was at the helm of the affairs and Commissioner(Excise), Government of Chhattisgarh. He stands protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The person who owns Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Limited stands protected by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The fact that from 8th May 2024 that the matter was laid till the date of dismissal and the date till the Supreme Court passed an order, they have not been arrested. The first order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Mr. Tuteja both father and son. The son stands protected because he was not arrested, he was protected by the statement of 8th may 2024. The fact remains that the prime accused both private and government namely the top most person in the department Commissioner of Excise and Director Prizm both are moving freely and persons working under Niranjan Das is seeking bail today essentially on the ground of long incarceration. He has placed his reliance in the judgment of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024 as under: “3.2. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereimafter ‘CBI’) the Respondent registered an FIR No. RC0032022A0053 (hereinafter ‘FIR’) on 17.08.2022 under Section 120-B read with Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter ‘PC Act’) against various persons. The FIR alleged irregularities, falsification, undue advantage and a conspiracy among the persons holding positions of responsibility within the GNCTD, in framing and implementing the Excise Policy for the year 2021-2022 (hereinafter ‘Excise Police’). However the appellant’s name did not figure in the FIR.” 7. He has further referred to para 14 of the judgment wherein it has been held as under: “14. Having considered the material on record and the extensive submissions made by the parties, the following questions fall for our deliberation: i) Whether there was any illegality in the Appellant’s arrest? If so, whether the Appellant is entitled to be released forthwith, even in the absence of a formal bail application? ii) Whether the Appellant, regardless of his lawful arrest, is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail? If so, whether the Appellant is entitled to be released forthwith, even in the absence of a formal bail application? ii) Whether the Appellant, regardless of his lawful arrest, is entitled to be enlarged on regular bail? iii) Whether the filing of a charge sheet is a change in circumstances of such a decisive nature that an accused would be liable to be relegated to the Trial Court to make out a case for grant of regular bail?” 8. In para 35 of the judgment, it has been held as under: “38. The evolution of bail jurisprudence in India underscores that the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. [4] the principle has further been expanded to establish that the prolonged incarceration of an accused person, pending trial, amount to an unjust deprivation of personal liberty. This Court in Union of India Vs. K.A.Najeeb has expanded this principle even in a case under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (hereinafter ‘UAPA’) notwithstanding the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D(5) of that Act, laying down that the legislative policy against the grant of bail will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time. [5] The courts would invariably bend towards ‘liberty’ with a flexible approach towards an under trial, save and except when the release of such person is likely to shatter societal aspirations, derail the trial or deface the very criminal justice system which is integral to rule of law. [4] Gudikanti Narsimhulu Vs.Public prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240 [5] Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, AIR 2021 SC 712 39. It was submitted during these proceedings that the FIR was registered on 17.08.2022 and since then, the charge sheet along with four supplementary charge sheets have been filed. The further supplementary charge sheet was filed as recently as 29.07.2024 and we are informed that the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the same. Additionally, seventeen accused persons have been named, 224 individuals have been identified as witnesses and extensive documentation both physical and digital has been submitted. These factors suggest that the completion of the trial is unlikely to occur in the immediate future. 40. Additionally, seventeen accused persons have been named, 224 individuals have been identified as witnesses and extensive documentation both physical and digital has been submitted. These factors suggest that the completion of the trial is unlikely to occur in the immediate future. 40. In our considered view, although the procedure for the appellant’s arrest meets the requisite criteria for legality and compliance, continued incarceration for an extended period pending trial would infringe upon established legal principles and the Appellant’s right to liberty, traceable to Article 21 of our constitution. The appellant has been granted interim bail by this Court in the ED matter on 10.05.2024 and 12.07.2024, arising from the same set of facts. Additionally, several co-accused in both the CBI and ED matters have also been granted bail by the Trial Court, the High Court and this Court in separate proceedings. 41. So far as the apprehension of the Appellant influencing the outcome of the trial is concerned, it seems that all evidence and material relevant to the CBI’s disposition is already in their possession, negating the likelihood of tampering by the appellant. Similarly, given the Appellant’s position and his roots in the society, there seems to be no valid reason to entertain the apprehension of his fleeing the country. In any case, in order to assuage the apprehensions of the CBI, we may impose stricter bail conditions. As regard to Appellant indulging in influencing witnesses, it needs no emphasis that in the event of any such instance, it will amount to misuse of the concession of bail and necessary consequences will follow. 42. Therefore in the light of these extenuating circumstances and considering the foregoing analysis, it could be resolved that the Appellant satisfies the requisite triple conditions for the grant o bail. We order accordingly.” 9. Further it has been held by the Supreme Court as per Ujjal Bhuyan, Judge in para 22 of the judgment as under: “22. In so far arrest of the appellant by the CBI is concerned, it raises more questions that it seeks to answer. As already noted above, CBI case was registered on 17.08.2022. Till the arrest of the appellant by the ED on 21.03.2024, CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant though it had interrogated him about a year back on 16.04.2023. As already noted above, CBI case was registered on 17.08.2022. Till the arrest of the appellant by the ED on 21.03.2024, CBI did not feel the necessity to arrest the appellant though it had interrogated him about a year back on 16.04.2023. It appears that only after the learned Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case on 20.06.2024 (which was stayed by the High Court on 21.06.2024 on oral mentioning) that CBI became active and sought for custody of the appellant which was granted by the learned Special Judge on 26.06.2024. Even on the date of his arrest by the CBI on 26.06.2024 appellant was not named as an accused by the CBI. Only in the last charge sheet filed by the CBI on 29.07.2024, appellant has been named as an accused. 23. thus, it is evidence that CBI did not feel the need and necessity to arrest the appellant from 17.08.2022 till 26.06.2024 ie for over 22 months. It was only after the learned Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant in the ED case that the CBI activated its machinery and took the appellant into custody. Such action on the part of the CBI raises a serious question mark on the timing of the arrest; rather on the arrest itself. For 22 months, CBI does not arrest the appellant but after the learned Special Judge grants regular bail to the appellant in the ED case, CBI seeks his custody. In the circumstances, a view may be taken that such an arrest by the CBI was perhaps only to frustrate the bail granted to the appellant in the ED case. 24. In so far the grounds of arrest are concerned , I am of the view that those would not satisfy the test of necessity to justify arrest of the appellant and now that the appellant is seeking bail post incarceration, those cannot also be the grounds to deny him bail. The respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the investigation, therefore he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. The respondent is definitely wrong when it says that because the appellant was evasive in his reply, because he was not cooperating with the investigation, therefore he was rightly arrested and now should be continued in detention. It cannot be the proposition that only when an accused answers the questions put to him by the investigation agency in the manner in which the investigating agency would like the accused to answer, would mean that the accused is cooperating with the investigation. Further the respondent cannot justify arrest and continued detention citing evasive reply. 25. We should not forget the cardinal principle under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India that no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This Court has held that such a protection is available to a person accused of an offence not merely with respect to the evidence that may be given in the court in the course of the trial, but is also available to the accused at a previous stage if an accusation has been made against him which might in the normal course result in his prosecution. Thus, the protection is available to a person against whom a formal accusation has been made, though the actual trial may not have commenced and if such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. An accused has the right to remain silent; he cannot be compelled to make inculpatory statements against himself. No adverse inference can be drawn from the silence of the accused. If this is the position, then the very grounds given for arrest of the appellant would be wholly untenable. On such grounds, it would be a travesty of justice to keep the appellant in further detention in the CBI case, more so, when he has already been granted bail to the same set of allegations under the more stringent provisions of PMLA. 26. That apart, the apprehension of tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses has already been answered by this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia in the following manner: 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with the regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant. 10. So assuming that it stands legally valid, the time of arrest, its registration everything becomes doubtful. The applicant was arrested by EOW, immediately on ECIR being quashed by the Supreme Court, thereafter he was arrested immediately when the bail application was put up in EOW. This timing with a mind set that the accused should not come out is deplorable. He placed his reliance of the Supreme Court stating that one complaint goes nothing in pursuance to that investigation can found basis for further investigation. 11. It is contended by the learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a mere employee executed with the task and as per the instructions of his employer and there is no evidence against him of criminal intent. The applicant is not a beneficiary of the wrongful money and nothing has been recovered from his possession. He was only the office In charge and carrying out the ministerial and clerical work and that he has no knowledge of any illegal activity. The holograms were being sent in furtherance of the company’s obligation to supply and manufacture the same. It is therefore contended that the arrest of the applicant is illegal in view of he guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 that reasons for arrest must be recorded and communicated to the accused. It is contended that the incriminating statements taken by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) are inadmissible and have no evidentiary value and that the statements made under duress or coercion are inadmissible as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan lal (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335). It has been further relied upon the matter of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Paramhansa Jadab Vs. Bhajan lal (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335). It has been further relied upon the matter of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4 and Paramhansa Jadab Vs. State of Orissa (1991) 2 SCC 48 wherein it has been held that mere association or presence does not prove common intention or conspiracy. The prosecution has to prove the existence of a prior agreement to commit an illegal act, which is lacking in the present case. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V.Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 (0) AIJEL-SC 74084 in Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024 wherein it has been held in para 13 as under : 13. We have carefully considered the submissions. The main document relied upon by the ED showing incriminatory material against the appellant is a part of the pen drive seized by the State police from the appellant's premises in connection with scheduled offences. The concerned Court dealing with the scheduled ofences has provided the printed version of the soft files in the seized pen drive. There is no reason, at this stage, to doubt the authenticity of the soft files. There is also prima facie material to show a deposit of cash amount of Rs. 1,34 crores in the appellant's bank account. At this stage, the contention of the appellant regarding the deposit of remuneration received as MLA and agriculture income cannot be accepted in the absence of any prima facie evidence to show the existence of the appellant’s cash income as MLA and the appellant’s agriculture income. Therefore at this stage, it will be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against the appellant in the complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA and material relied upon therein.” 12. Further it has been contended that the co-accused, who is the kingpin has already been granted bail by this Court and the applicant also stands on the same footing therefore on the ground of parity, he may be granted bail. The applicant has not been named in the FIR and there is no direct involvement of the applicant in the crime, he does not hold a passport and thus, is not a flight risk. The applicant has not been named in the FIR and there is no direct involvement of the applicant in the crime, he does not hold a passport and thus, is not a flight risk. It is contended that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no chance of the applicant tempering with the evidence or not being available at the stage of trial, though stringent conditions may be imposed. The applicant is not the beneficiary of proceeds of crime. Lastly, it has been contended that the role of the applicant is limited to coordinate of the distribution of the hologram and even considering the prosecution case it can be said that there is no mens rea or intention or knowledge to commit the said crime as has been alleged by the respondent. The applicant has cooperated through out the investigation and the case of the applicant is on parity with that of the main accused, who had been granted bail. He has emphasized upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.Rajesh Ranjan (2004) and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. The applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is no chance of his fleeing from justice or tampering with the evidence. 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. If such power is recognized, then it may lead to chaotic situation and would jeopardize the personal liberty of an individual. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42 , it has been observed that: “18. It is trite law that personal liberty cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Personal liberty is a constitutional guarantee. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. However, Article 21 which guarantees the above right also contemplates deprivation of personal liberty by procedure established by law. Under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non bailable is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non bailable offences are entitled for bail if the court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the court is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case there is a need to release such persons on bail where fact situations require it to do so. In that process a person whose application for enlargement on bail is once rejected is not precluded from filing a subsequent application for grant of bail if there is a change in the fact situation. In such cases if the circumstances then prevailing requires that such persons to be released on bail, in spite of his earlier applications being rejected, the courts can do so. XXXX XXXX XXXX 20. The decisions given by a superior forum, undoubtedly, is binding on the subordinate fora on the same issue even in bail matters unless of course, there is a material change in the fact situation calling for a different view being taken. Therefore, even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a subsequent application. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the argument of learned counsel for the accused that in view the guaranty conferred on a person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is open to the aggrieved person to make successive bail applications even on a ground already rejected by courts earlier including the Apex Court of the country.” 13. Further in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs.CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 , it has been observed as under: 10) Shri. Haren P. Raval, the learned Additional Solicitor General, in his reply, would submit that the offences that are being charged, are of the nature that the economic fabric of the country is brought at stake. Further, the learned ASG would state that the quantum of punishment could not be the only determinative factor for the magnitude of an offence. He would state that one of the relevant considerations for the grant of bail is the interest of the society at large as opposed to the personal liberty of the accused, and that the Court must not lose sight of the former. He would submit that in the changing circumstances and scenario, it was in the interest of the society for the Court to decline bail to the appellants. Shri. Raval would further urge that consistency is the norm of this Court and that there was no reason or change in circumstance as to why this Court should take a different view from the order of 20th June 2011 in Sharad Kumar Etc. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [in SLP (Crl) No. 4584-4585 of 2011] rejecting bail to some of the co-accused in the same case. Shri. Raval would further state that the investigation in these cases is monitored by this Court and the trial is proceeding on a day-to-day basis and that there is absolutely no delay on behalf of the prosecuting agency in completing the trial. Further, he would submit that the appellants, having cooperated with the investigation, is no ground for grant of bail, as they were expected to cooperate with the investigation as provided by the law. He would further submit that the test to enlarge an accused on bail is whether there is a reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence, and that there is an apprehension of threat to some of the witnesses. The learned ASG would further submit that there is more reason now for the accused not to be enlarged on bail, as they now have the knowledge of the identity of the witnesses, who are the employees of the accused, and there is an apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered with. The learned ASG would further submit that there is more reason now for the accused not to be enlarged on bail, as they now have the knowledge of the identity of the witnesses, who are the employees of the accused, and there is an apprehension that the witnesses may be tampered with. The learned ASG would state that Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. uses the word "appears", and, therefore, that the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the power of the trial Judge with regard to a person summoned under Section 87 is controlled by Section 88 is incorrect. Shri. Raval also made references to the United Nations Convention on Corruption and the Report on the Reforms in the Criminal Justice System by Justice Malimath, which, we do not think, is necessary to go into. The learned ASG also relied on a few decisions of this Court, and the same will be dealt with in the course of the judgment. On a query from the Bench, the learned ASG would submit that in his opinion, bail should be denied in all cases of corruption which pose a threat to the economic fabric of the country, and that the balance should tilt in favour of the public interest. XXXX XXXX XXXX 14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15) 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 Indian Penal Code 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." 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. This Court, in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan- (2005) 2 SCC 42 , observed that "under the criminal laws of this country, a person accused of offences which are non-bailable, is liable to be detained in custody during the pendency of trial unless he is enlarged on bail in accordance with law. Such detention cannot be questioned as being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, since the same is authorized by law. But even persons accused of non- bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him and/or if the Court is satisfied by reasons to be recorded that in spite of the existence of prima facie case, there is need to release such accused on bail, where fact situations require it to do so." 14. Time and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. Contention of Dr. Sourabh Pandey, learned Dy. Time and again, Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. Contention of Dr. Sourabh Pandey, learned Dy. AG on behalf of the State submits that on receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, a prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the ofence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420,467,471 and 120-B of IPC was made out against the applicant and FIR was registered as Crime No. 04/2023. It is contended by learned State counsel that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating the State of Chhattisgarh and making collection of illegal bribes by controlling the high level management of important State department and State Public Sector Undertakings. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate which has been classified in following ways: i) Part -A : Illegal commission charged from the liquor suppliers on the accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh ii) Part -B : Sale of off-the record unaccounted country liquor from State run shops which was done with active involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers, bottle makers, transporters, manpower management and district excise officials. Part -C : Annual commission paid to allow distillers to operate in the State of Chhattisgarh. 16. The EOW has analyzed the information and the data shared by the Income Tax Department and on the basis of the said documents and records, it has been established that a conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. For investigation, the liquor was divided into two categories namely Country liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). For investigation, the liquor was divided into two categories namely Country liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Country Liquor was produced in the State of Chhattisgarh through three distilleries : I) M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd. ii) M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. iii) M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. In the investigation, it has come that massive corruption has taken place in the Excise Department since 2019. The Excise Departments were set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent inebriant tragedies and to earn revenue for the State but the criminal syndicate led by Mr. Anwar Dhebar and Mr. Anil Tuteja have systematically altered liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. The excise policy in the State of Chhattisgarh was amended in the year 2017 and CSMCL in February, 2017, was thus created with the responsibility to exclusively retail liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh through its stores. The CSMCL was established with the vision to provide genuine liquor, to stop sale of illegal Liquor, to provide liquor on MRP. It established its own stores to retail the liquor/beer/wine/country liquor after procuring liquor from manufacturers directly. 17. From the facts and evidence collected by the investigation Agency in the instant case, after initial investigation, preliminary charge sheet has been filed by the EOW before the Court having jurisdiction on 27.09.2024 wherein it has been found that the present applicant who was working as In charge in Prism Holography and Security Pvt. Ltd. was involved in transportation and printing of Duplicate Hologram in Excise Scam. The applicant is the key person in facilitating the duplicate hologram from his employer Vidhu Gupta to all three distillers ie CG Distilleries Ltd, Bhatia Wine and Welcome Distilleries operating in the State of Chhattisgarh, head office situated in Noida UP in coordination with Amit Singh. Amit Singh used to send Prakash Sharma @ Chhottu to help the applicant in collecting and distributing the duplicate hologram. From October 2013- December 2019 the duplicate hologram was received by the applicant in Raipur and was distributed to different distilleries and the the duplicate holograms were seized from the bottling plant of one Anurag Dwivedi at Dhaneli, Raipur by the EOW. 18. It has been further mentioned that the land owner of the Bottling unit is Anwar Dhebar. From October 2013- December 2019 the duplicate hologram was received by the applicant in Raipur and was distributed to different distilleries and the the duplicate holograms were seized from the bottling plant of one Anurag Dwivedi at Dhaneli, Raipur by the EOW. 18. It has been further mentioned that the land owner of the Bottling unit is Anwar Dhebar. Later on the applicant coordinated with one Deepak Duari for distribution of duplicate holograms which were printed under the supervision of the present applicant and supplied to the distilleries. During the course of investigation, memorandum statement of the applicant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded following seizure of transport permit and invoices mentioning the details about the supply of duplicate holograms from Noida to Raipur. 19. It has been contended by Dr. Pandey, learned State counsel that in a catena of judgments, at the time of consideration of an application for bail, the court should consider three factors, ie. flight risk or likelihood of fleeing justice; ii) likelihood of tampering with evidence and iii) likelihood of influencing witness. In the present case the applicant was part of a syndicate and involved in the sale of illegal liquor in the entire State of Chhattisgarh and has caused huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer and thus, it shows that there is every likelihood of tampering the evidence by the applicant and in the light of the above circumstance, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail during investigation. 20. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record and the documents annexed with utmost circumspection. 21. In this case, an organized crime has been allegedly committed by the applicant and other co-accused some of whom are holding high posts are IAS and ITS officers. In the instant case, after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate, the EOW has filed prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the above offences and FIR has been registered in Crime No. 04.2024 against the applicant who is in incarceration from 15th February 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC.. It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019. The Excise department was set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State but the criminal syndicate have altered the policy as per their whims and facies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves and total earning of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to financial year 2022-23 to the State exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima facie ofence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. The contention of the learned Sr. counsel for the applicant that the co-accused, who is the kingpin has been granted bail by this Court and the present applicant also stands on the same footing therefore on the ground of parity, he may be granted bail. To this contention, it appears that the co-accused was granted bail mainly on medical grounds looking to the severe medical issues and his constant need of medical supervision and as such, there is no serious medical issue with regard to the present applicant and therefore, he cannot claim for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 22. To this contention, it appears that the co-accused was granted bail mainly on medical grounds looking to the severe medical issues and his constant need of medical supervision and as such, there is no serious medical issue with regard to the present applicant and therefore, he cannot claim for grant of bail on the ground of parity. 22. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the applicant herein, the manner in which he is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby was part of a syndicate and involved in the illegal earning by assisting in providing duplicate hologram and considering the nature of charge and gravity of offence, the applicant is charged which is extremely serious and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. 23. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), is hereby rejected.