Cr.M.P.(M) No. 273 of 2008 10.4.2008 Present: S/Shri T.R.Chandel, N.K.Thakur, Satyan Vaidya, Ajay Kochhar and Bimal Gupta, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General, For the respondent. This petition for grant of bail has been moved by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. FIR No. 2 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner on 22nd February, 2008 wherein it is alleged that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruptions Act. The petitioner, at the relevant time, was functioning as Drugs Controlling Authority for the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged that on 22.2.2008 the police officials received some information that the petitioner was collecting bribes from various Pharmaceutical Industries in consideration for passing their drugs, some of which are substandard. Raid was conducted and the police officials apprehended the accused at Promed Pharma Unit, Khera, Nalagarh. The car of the accused was parked in the unit. The security supervisor of the said unit was associated with the search operation. The car was searched and a total sum of Rs. 4,72,000/- was recovered from car. According to the prosecution this amount had been collected by the petitioner from various Pharmaceutical Units for passing substandard drugs. Thereafter the FIR was registered. Further investigation was conducted. During the course of this investigation, a sum of Rs. 14,70,000/- in cash was recovered from the house of the accused at Solan. Details of various properties in the name of the petitioner were recovered. According to the prosecution the petitioner had purchased a large number of properties in his own name and he had also made benami purchases in the names of his wife, his mother-in-law and his daughter. Various accounts in the names of the petitioner and his relatives were discovered. Expensive items such as Plasma TVs, LCD TVs etc. were also recovered. It is also alleged that the petitioner has purchased Benami properties in the names of his wife and mother-in-law, who have no other independent source of income. The petitioner was arrested on 22.3.2008 and has been in custody since then. The petitioner approached the learned Special Judge, Solan for grant of bail who rejected his bail application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has amassed huge wealth by under-hand means and this is an offence against society. The learned Special Judge held that the gravity of the offence committed by the accused is very serious and keeping in view his clout and wealth, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence. Therefore, he has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. I have heard Mr. T.R.Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that bail is the normal rule and jail is the exception. It is further contended that the maximum sentence provided for the offence alleged is 7 years and the minimum sentence is one year, but the judgments relied upon by the learned Special Judge relate to cases where death penalty could have been imposed. It is further submitted that merely because the charges against the petitioner are grave, he cannot be denied bail. The petitioner is a government servant having 3 school going children. He himself is a patient of hypertension and, therefore, he cannot be kept in prison, especially when the trial of the case is likely to take a very long time. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, contended that the petitioner has amassed huge wealth by unscrupulous means and he was taking the bribes to pass sub-standard drugs which pose danger to society. He further contended that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence, especially since he can exert pressure on the witnesses and virtually buy them all. I have taken all the relevant factors into consideration. There is no doubt that the petitioner is charged with a grave offence. However, the offence is not so grave so as to deny the petitioner bail itself. In a case, like the present one, the trial is likely to go on for years. The petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an interminably long period. I have gone to through the record and find that the investigation is near completion. It is also admitted that most of the property of the petitioner is situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh . He is, therefore, unlikely to abscond. Very stiff conditions can be imposed upon the petitioner to ensure that he does not flout the facility of bail granted to him. I am also of the opinion that the learned Special Judge erred in virtually holding the petitioner guilty even before trial. The learned lower court has also lost sight of the fact that minimum sentence for the offence provided is only one year and the maximum sentence is seven years. One must remember that though the petitioner is charged with a grave offence, these charges still have to be proved. If proved guilty, the petitioner shall naturally have to undergo sentence imposed upon him, but merely on the allegations that the petitioner has collected large sums of money and has also purchased many properties bail cannot be denied to him. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the bail application filed by the petitioner is allowed. He is directed to be released on bail on the following terms and conditions:- 1. That the petitioner shall furnish personal bail bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Solan undertaking to appear before the Investigating Officer as well as the trial court as and when called upon to do so; 2. That the petitioner shall furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each from local sureties of Himachal Pradesh to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Solan; 3. That the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency by a written Hukamnama; 4. That the petitioner shall inform the Investigating Agency of his address and also give them his telephone numbers, both, mobile and landline; 5. That in case of change of address, the petitioner shall not move to the changed address without informing the Investigating Agency; 6. Even if the petitioner has to go out of station from the given address, he will first inform the Investigating Agency and then only leave the station; 7. That the petitioner shall not directly himself or through his relatives or friends try to contact the prosecution witnesses; 8. That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Investigating team or Court; 9. That the petitioner shall not attempt to hamper the investigation in any manner whatsoever or tamper with the prosecution evidence; 10. That the petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the investigation or trial of the case; 11. That the petitioner shall not leave India without prior permission of this Court. It is made clear that in case the petitioner violates any of the conditions of this bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply to this court for cancellation of bail. In case this court finds that the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of the bail, his bail shall be cancelled forthwith. It is also made clear that this bail has been granted only in respect of FIR No. 2 of 2008, mentioned aboveThe petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Copy Dasti, on usual charges. April 10, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.