JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Bail petitioner, Manoj Rayta, has come up before this Court, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’] seeking pre-arrest bail, originating from FIR No.02 of 2025, dated 01.02.2025, registered at Police Station, SV & ACB, Shimla, District Shimla [H.P.], under Sections 61(2), 318, 335, 336, 338, 339 and 340 read with Section 3(5) of the BNSSand Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. FACTUAL MATRIX 2. Case set up by Mr. Peeyush Verma, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Learned Counsel, is that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any act contrary to law and he has been falsely implicated at the instance of persons having inimical relations. False and twisted facts and alleged political rivalry has been alleged to have been made the basis for implicating the petitioner. It is averred that some clerical mistakes committed by the officials, which are not based on facts have been made the basis for false implication of the bail-petitioner. 2(i) Bail-petitioner has furnished an undertaking that he shall not impede the grant of bail in any manner. Another undertaking has been furnished that he shall join the investigation and shall appear before the police authorities as and when required/called for, in relation to the accusation, in instant case. 2(ii) Petitioner has given an undertaking that he shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of instant case. It is averred that the petitioner has a family consisting of parents, brother, sister and wife, who are dependent upon him and his personal liberty cannot be restricted, curtailed or taken away on mere accusation by the State Authorities. Petitioner has also stated that he has no past criminal antecedents whatsoever. It is in this background, that the prayer for bail has been made, by way of the instant petition. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT: 3. Based on the aforesaid averments, the Coordinate Bench of this Court issued notice, on 4.2.2025 to the State Authorities to file reply/Status Report. 3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the matter was listed on 5.2.2025 when, the Status Report dated 5.2.2025 [Taken on Record], on Instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Station House Officer, Police Station SV & ACB, Shimla was filed in the Court. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 4. 3(i). Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the matter was listed on 5.2.2025 when, the Status Report dated 5.2.2025 [Taken on Record], on Instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Station House Officer, Police Station SV & ACB, Shimla was filed in the Court. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES 4. Perusal of Status Report dated 5.2.2025, indicates that investigation is in at preliminary stage. It is averred that during Inquiry-Investigation, the Investigating Agencies have taken the record from Office of Sub Divisional Officer, (Civil), Theog and Assistant Engineer (JSV), Sub Division Theog including the notebooks as maintained by officials of Jal Shakti Vibhag. It is averred that records showing the engagement of tankers/pickups for transporting the portable water to different locations is being scrutinized. 4(i) In Para 10(ii) of the Status Report, it is stated that four Contractors namely Surinder Verma, Rohit Bekta, Kuldeep Kamal and Manoj Rayta, [including present bail petitioner, Manoj Rayta] have been associated in the investigation. Status Report indicates that in addition to Contractors other persons who were engaged in the supply of portable water through tankers/pickups and the Government officials including Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Theog, Assistant Engineer and Junior Engineer and other officials are yet to be examined hereinafter. It is averred that the records are being scrutinized. Even the spot, where the water was supplied, is to be inspected. So far as bail petitioner [Manoj Rayta] is concerned, the Status Report does not indicate that the petitioner was not cooperating with Investigating Agencies after grant of interim bail on 5.2.2025 or petitioner was hampering the investigation in any manner or his custodial interrogation was required by the police. 5. Heard Mr. Peeyush Verma, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the bail petitioner; and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Learned State Counsel. ANALYSIS 6. Taking into account entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record as borne out from the Status Report dated 5.2.2025, this Court is of the considered view, that the interim bail, granted to petitioner-Manoj Rayta on 05.02.2025, is made absolute , with directions to continue the concession of bail, to the petitioner, for the following reasons:- 6(i) Perusal of Status Report filed by the State Authorities indicates that on 27.12.2023 some inputs were received that pumping machinery had suddently collapsed and extra water was required for Devta function, in Deorighat Panchayat in Tikkar. Even complaints regarding non-supply of water were received from villagers and school authorities also. In view of this, an urgent need was felt by department for supply and deployment of water through water tankers. Accordingly, the SDO (Civil) Theog, directed Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of Jal Shakti Vibhag Theog to initiate tendering process and ensure water supply through Contractors, for which budget stood allocated. Accordingly, Assistant Engineer, Jal Shakti Vibhag, Matyana/Koti/Theog initiated the tendering process and after negotiation, the water supply rates were fixed on 26.12.2024 and four Contractors were approved for supplying portable water to area. Pursuant to the tendering finalization, the work of supplying water through tankers was awarded to Four Contractors namely Surender Verma, Rohit Bekta, Kuldeep Kamal and Manoj Rayta [bail petitioner] for which the Contractors were released payments by concerned agency. Status Report further indicates that portable water through tanker was filled from river-Khud situated on Mori road i.e. one kilometer ahead from Chailla bifurcation point. 6(ii). Status Report further indicates that water supply was executed between December, 2023 to September 2024. Status Report indicates that matter is yet to be examined/verified by police authorities from the official of Jal Shakti Vibhag, Sub Division Theog/Koti, which is underway. Para 4 of Status Report indicates that Water Supply Notebooks maintained by the officials of Jal Shakti Vibhag shows lack of supervision, as all the entries appear to have been made in one go and not on regular basis. Misrepresentation of facts, unverifiable trip records of tankers, fake vehicle registration number in the bill create doubt on integrity of the officials of the Jal Shakti Vibhag department. Status Report reveals that discrepancies have been noticed in the water distribution notebook maintained by field staff and water bill created by Junior Engineer of Jal Shakti Vibhag department. Even variation in trips of vehicle(s) vis-à-vis bill raised for which payment was made is being collected from the officials of Jal Shakti Vibhag and these records are required to be sent to SFSL analysis. However, Status Report reveals that the payments were made, after bills were verified by Assistant Engineer of Jal Shakti Vibhag concerned. 6(iii). Perusal of averments in Para 6(i) and (ii) supra and the Status Report dated 5.2.2025 does not indicate any prima-facie case against the petitioner. Even no reasonable grounds exist against the petitioner at this stage. However, Status Report reveals that the payments were made, after bills were verified by Assistant Engineer of Jal Shakti Vibhag concerned. 6(iii). Perusal of averments in Para 6(i) and (ii) supra and the Status Report dated 5.2.2025 does not indicate any prima-facie case against the petitioner. Even no reasonable grounds exist against the petitioner at this stage. Even the accusation against petitioner appears to be highly doubtful when, the Status Report indicates that payments were made to Contractors [including bail petitioner] by the SDO(C)-cum-SDM Theog, after due verification of bills by Assistant Engineer concerned. Even the accusation is yet to be investigated and thereafter tested, examined and proved during the trial, if any, in accordance with law. Moreover, the accusation is being examined/scrutinized then, the concession of bail cannot be denied to the petitioner, at this stage. PETITIONER JOINED AND COOPERATING INVESTIGATION: COOPERATING WITH INVESTIGATING AGENCIES 6(iv) Para 10(ii) of Status Report indicates that investigation is in progress and bail petitioner [Manoj Rayta] has joined investigation. On query by this Court, Learned State Counsel, affirms these facts that petitioner has joined and is cooperating with the Investigating Agencies as on day, in pursuance to orders of interim pre-arrest bail passed by this Court on 5.2.2025. PERSONAL LIBERTY UNDER ARTICLE 21 CANNOT BE CURTAILED-RESTRICTED-TAKEN AWAY ON MERE ACCUSATIONS 6(v). Bail petitioner has a right for bail at this stage, for the reason, that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Mere accusation cannot deprive the petitioner of his personal liberty and that too by way of a punishment. Even restriction on personal liberty available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away or denied or curtailed, when, the material on record does not reveal that any prima-facie case or reasonable grounds exist against the petitioner, at this stage. PRESUMPTION OF GUILT CANNOT BE INFERRED:WHEN NEITHER ANY PRIMA FACIE CASE NOR REASONABLE GROUNDS EXIST AGAINST PETITIONER IN STATUS REPORT 6(vi). Petitioner is entitled for enlargement on bail, for the reason that presumption of guilt cannot be inferred, whereas, the presumption in criminal law, is that an accused including the petitioner is to be innocent unless proved guilty. Even Status Report indicates that investigation is still underway and nothing cogent and concrete adversial has been reported by State Authorities in the Status Report against the bail petitioner, at this stage. 7. Even Status Report indicates that investigation is still underway and nothing cogent and concrete adversial has been reported by State Authorities in the Status Report against the bail petitioner, at this stage. 7. Perusal of the facts in Paras 6(i) to 6(vi) supra, support the case of the petitioner in view of the principles mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding curtailment of personal liberty to be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India coupled with the fact that object of bail is to ensure presence of an accused in investigation and Trial thereafter and the fact that the denial of bail can neither be preventative not punitive in Criminal Appeal No.2787 of 2024 titled Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh versus State of Maharashta and another , in Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024 , decided on 09.08.2024, in Criminal Appeal No.______of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.10778 of 2024] , titled as Kalvakuntla Kavitha Versus Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter, in Criminal Appeal No.4011 of 2024, in Re: V. Senthil Balaji Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement and in Criminal Appeal No.5266 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.13870 of 2024 titled as Partha Chatterjee Versus Directorate of Enforcemen t, decided on 13.12.2024 SCC Online SC 3729, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail in this case. NO PAST CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS 8. Status Report does not indicate any past criminal antecedents of the petitioner and in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the denial of concession of bail shall certainly amount to depriving and curtailing the personal liberty of petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. BAIL ON PRINCIPLE OF PARITY 9. Notably, one co-accused namely Neem Chand has been released on bail by the Learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla on 25.02.2025. In these circumstances, once a co-accused has been enlarged on bail then, the petitioner who being a Contractor had supplied water through tankers is entitled for parity in treatments when nothing incriminating is found against him, at this stage as per Status Report and accordingly, the claim for bail, on the principle of parity has weight and the same is accordingly granted. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 10. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES ETC: 10. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or may cause any inducement threat or promise to any person or persons acquainted with the facts of the case. However, the apprehension if any, of the State Authorities can be safeguarded, at this stage by imposing stringent conditions in this bail order. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL REGARDING OBSTRUCTING OR ATTEMPTING TO THWARTING JUSTICE 11. Status Reports filed by State Authorities have neither pointed out any adversarial circumstances nor placed any cogent and convincing material on record, at this stage, to infer that after release on bail, the petitioner may obstruct or thwart the cause of justice in any manner. In absence of any material, the plea of petitioner for bail deserves to be accepted, in instant case. NOTHING ADVERSARIAL LIKELIHOOD OF FLEEING AWAY FROM TRIAL OR JURISDICTION OF COURT 12. In order to safeguard the rights of bail petitioner and to take care of apprehensions of State Authorities that the bail petitioner may flee away [notwithstanding the fact that no such apprehension has been pointed out in Status Report] yet, in the peculiar facts of this case, this Court imposes stringent conditions, in later part of this bail order. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 13. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 13. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove and upon considering the facts and circumstances and the material on record and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court supra, this Court is of the considered view, that the orders dated 5.2.2025 granting interim pre-arrest bail, are made absolute and the instant petition is allowed ; with directions to State Authorities to treat the petitioner [Manoj Rayta], on bail, subject to observance of the following conditions:- (i) Respondent-State Authorities shall release bail petitioner [Manoj Rayta] on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- {Rs Fifty Thousand} with two sureties on furnishing similar bond amount each, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; (ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 03.03.2025 and on subsequent dates as and when called/directed to do so by the Investigating Officer; (iii) Petitioner shall abide by all or any other condition(s), which may be imposed by the Investigating Officer, in view of this order; (iv) Petitioner shall neither involve himself nor shall abet the commission of any offence hereinafter. Involvement in any offence whatsoever or abetting thereof shall entail automatic cancellation of bail granted in terms of this order ; (v) Petitioner shall disclose his functional E-Mail IDs/ WhatsApp number and that of his surety to the Learned Trial Court; (vi) Petitioner shall not jump over the bail and also shall not leave the country without the prior information of the Court; (vii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner; (viii) Petitioner shall not cause any inducement, threat or promise {directly or indirectly} to witnesses of any other person acquainted with the case; (ix) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking alteration/modification of any of the condition contained in this order in fact situation of instant case or circumstances so necessitate, at any time herein-after; (x) State Authorities are free to move this Court for seeking cancellation of the concession of bail, in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions contained in this order; 14. It is clarified that any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as findings either for the purposes of investigation or trial, which shall proceed, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the observations. In aforesaid terms, the petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s) shall stand disposed of.