- (1.) This is second bail application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.253/2018 registered at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Section 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner stated that the charge-sheet has been filed and no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in jail as trial is going to take some time. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2012 Supreme Court 830 to submit that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Relevant para 14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: "14. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is tosecure the appearance for 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 time, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, nece3ssity 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 unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."
(3.) Learned counsel submits that grant of bail is Rule and Jail is exception. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is alleged to have falsely obtained a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- from the complainant upon assurance to get him appointed in the Border Roads Organisation. In the charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove that any amount was paid by the complainant to the petitioner.;