Court grants bail under Section 439 CrPC, emphasizing accused's role & barring bail denial based solely on criminal history.

The court granted the petitioner bail under Section 439 CrPC, considering factors such as the nature of allegations, the accused's role, and the decision not to arrest initially. The court emphasized that criminal history alone cannot be a ground for bail rejection, focusing on the accused's role in the alleged offense. Bail was granted based on parity with the main accused's bail and imposed conditions to prevent interference with the investigation. The court clarified that the police retain the right for further investigation, with the bail order subject to modifications if necessary to uphold fundamental rights.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.
2. Criminal history of the accused.
3. Role of the petitioner in the alleged offence.
4. Parity in granting bail.
5. Conditions for granting bail.
6. Rights of the police for further investigation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail under Section 439 CrPC:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, apprehending arrest in connection with the FIR. The court considered this request based on the cumulative effect of various circumstances, including the nature of allegations, the role of the accused, and the decision of the Directorate of Enforcement not to arrest the accused initially.

2. Criminal History of the Accused:
The petitioner declared a criminal history involving FIR No. 86 dated 30.07.2013 and FIR No. 61 dated 13.05.2013, both registered at City Phagwara, District Kapurthala, under various sections of IPC. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observation in Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., highlighting that criminal antecedents alone cannot be a ground for rejecting bail. The court must consider the role of the accused and other circumstances.

3. Role of the Petitioner in the Alleged Offence:
The petitioner, being an accountant, was accused of sanctioning loans without verification, contributing to the fraudulent activities led by the main accused, Vikram Seth. The Enforcement Directorate's complaint detailed the fraudulent operations and misuse of loans by Vikram Seth and his associates, including the petitioner.

4. Parity in Granting Bail:
The court noted that the main accused, Vikram Kumar Seth, was granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench, and this order was not challenged by the respondent. Thus, the petitioner's case was considered on the grounds of parity, leading to the granting of bail under similar conditions.

5. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court imposed several conditions for granting bail to ensure the petitioner does not influence the investigation, tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses. The petitioner was required to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and a surety of Rs. 25,000 or a fixed deposit of Rs. 10,000. The court also allowed the petitioner to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits and provided options for modifying bail conditions if they violate fundamental rights or cause difficulty.

6. Rights of the Police for Further Investigation:
The court clarified that the bail order does not limit the rights of the police or the investigating agency from conducting further investigations as per law. If new sections are added to the FIR, the bail order would apply to those sections if the maximum sentence is not greater than the existing sections. Otherwise, the petitioner would be given a minimum of seven days' notice to avail legal remedies.

Conclusion:
The petition for bail was allowed with specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent the petitioner from repeating the offence. The court emphasized that the bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial, avoiding conditions that deprive rights and liberties. The order highlighted the need for desirable behavior from the accused in return for protection from incarceration. All pending applications were disposed of.

---