1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested by the police of Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC vide FIR No. 159 of 2023, dated 8.6.2023. The petitioner is innocent. There is no chance of his absconding or jumping over the bail. He would join the investigation and abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police, stating that the informant and his friends had paid ₹60,000/- to ₹70,000/- to the accused for sending them abroad to get a job. The accused did not send them abroad nor did he return the money. He switched off his mobile and action should be taken against him. The police registered the FIR and arrested the petitioner. The petitioner and the co-accused are friends, who had taken money from the people on the pretext of sending them abroad. The money was deposited in the account of the present petitioner. The petitioner disclosed that he had opened an office at Chandigarh and thereafter at Patiala. The petitioner is a resident of Nabha. He can sell his house and abscond in case of release on bail. Therefore, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Ms. Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

4. Ms Kiran Dhiman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. The petitioner has been in custody for more than three months. The police have filed the challan and the matter is listed for the evidence. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions, which may be imposed by the Court. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

5. Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner had defrauded the informant and other persons. He had earlier opened the offices at Chandigarh and Patiala. He is a resident of a different State and can abscond in case of release on bail. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the parameters for granting the bail in Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059 as under: -

"12. The grant of bail is a discretionary relief which necessarily means that such discretion would have to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The grant of bail is dependent upon contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the Court and may vary from case to case. There cannot be any exhaustive parameters set out for considering the application for a grant of bail. However, it can be noted that;

(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind factors such as the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment, if the accusations entail a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations;

(b) reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the Court in the matter of grant of bail.

(c) While it is not accepted to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought to be always a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge.

(d) Frivility of prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to have an order of bail.

13. We may also profitably refer to a decision of this Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528 where the parameters to be taken into consideration for the grant of bail by the Courts have been explained in the following words:

“11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence.

(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] and Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338: 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124].)”

8. A similar view was taken in State of Haryana vs Dharamraj 2023 SCC Online 1085, wherein it was observed:

"7. A foray, albeit brief, into relevant precedents is warranted. This Court considered the factors to guide the grant of bail in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, the relevant principles were restated thus:

‘9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

9. The police arrested the petitioner on 1.3.2024 and have filed a charge sheet against him, which is pending trial. Thus, the custody of the petitioner is not required for investigation.

10. The State has not asserted that any material witness is yet to be examined whom the petitioner can influence in case of release on bail. Therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not justified.

11. It was submitted that the petitioner was also involved in the commission of a similar offence in the past, however, no FIR has been placed on record to establish this fact. The reliance was placed upon the statement made by the petitioner that he had opened an office at Chandigarh and thereafter at Patiala. The fact that no FIR was lodged at these places shows that no person was aggrieved at those places.

12. The status report shows that the petitioner has a house at Nabha. It has been stated that the petitioner would sell his house and would abscond. This apprehension can be removed by laying the conditions but it is not sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner.

13. In view of the above, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. While on bail, the petitioner will abide by the following terms and conditions: -

"(i) The petitioner will join the investigation as and when directed to do so through a written hukamnama;

(ii) The petitioner will not intimidate the witnesses nor will he influence any evidence in any manner whatsoever;

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the trial in case a charge sheet is presented against him and will not seek unnecessary adjournments;

(iv) The petitioner will not leave the present address for a continuous period of seven days without furnishing the address of intending visit to the SHO, the Police Station concerned and the Trial Court;

(v) The petitioner will surrender his passport, if any, to the Court; and

(vi) The petitioner will furnish his mobile number, and social media contact to the Police and the Court and will abide by the summons/notices received from the Police/Court through SMS/WhatsApp/Social Media Account. In case of any change in the mobile number or social media accounts, the same will be intimated to the Police/Court within five days from the date of the change."

14. It is expressly made clear that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the prosecution will have the right to file a petition for cancellation of the bail.

15. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.