Subodh Bhandari vs The State
2005 Latest Caselaw 223 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This is the third application for bail moved on behalf of the present petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that the money was handed over by the Complainant Bajaj Capital Ltd to the extent of Rs. 1.30,00,000/- in case of the FIR No. 242/2002 and Rs. 142,65,096/- in FIR No. 282/2002 to the company known as 'Home Trade Ltd' for the purposes of purchasing Government securities and bonds. The allegation is that these sums of money were misappropriated by Home Trade Ltd and the securities and bonds were not delivered to the complainant Bajaj Capital Ltd. The money was transferred to the account of Home Trade Capital Ltd on account of deposit of cheques by Bajaj Capital Ltd with the said company.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is merely an employee of the said company called Home Trade Ltd and is a qualified Chartered Accountant. It is further submitted that in all there are 22 cases all-over India against Home Trade Ltd in which the petitioner, being the Vice-President and employee of the same, has also been included. All these cases are of a similar nature. Out of these 22 cases, in 20 cases, which are in Gujarat, Maharashtra and West Bengal, the petitioner has been granted bail. It is only in the two cases which are pending in Delhi that the petitioner has not been granted bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner took the court through the order of bail passed by the Aurangabad Bench a copy of which is at page 24 of the paper book in the Bail Application No. 1962/2004 and in particular he read out paragraphs 6, 7 & 8 to show the reasons for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3. This court on 11.03.2004, when the first bail application had been made, passed an order rejecting the same. However, while doing so, it had directed the trial court to take up the case on a day-to-day basis and to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the next date of hearing. Unfortunately, the trial has not been concluded within that period and, in fact, till today not much progress has been made in the trial. On 20.07.2004, the petitioner's second bail application came up for hearing before this court and it was withdrawn with the liberty to renew the plea for bail after the expiry of six months from the date of the earlier order of 11.03.2004. On 22.07.2004, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, who was conducting the trial, sent a report to the Registrar of this Court requesting for some more time to conclude the trial in view of the difficulties faced by him as noted in the said report. One of the reasons being that there were a large number of old cases and, therefore, the said two cases could not be fixed on a day-to-day basis. By an order dated 20.07.2004, in the meanwhile, the trial court had separated the trial of the present petitioner and those of the co-accused in order to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible. However, the petitioner objected to this separation and filed a petition before this court which was ultimately rejected on 03.12.2004.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been in custody for two and a half years in this connection with the said 22 cases, including the two present cases. He further argued that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the petitioner in custody, particularly inasmuch as in 20 other cases, the petitioner has been granted bail.

5. The learned counsel for the State, however, opposed the grant of bail on the ground that earlier the bail application had been rejected on merits and there is no change in the circumstances to warrant the grant of bail at present. He further submitted that the trial could be expedited and concluded within three months. He took me through the entire order-sheet of the trial court to show that the prosecution was not responsible for any delay in the conduct of the trial. He further pointed out that the trial was not completed on account of several factors, such as the presiding officer being on leave, the accused not being produced and the counsel for the accused taking time. Insofar as the first two are concerned, i.e., the presiding officer being on leave and non-production of the accused, the accused has no control over the same. As regards the taking of time by the counsel for the petitioner, it can be seen from the order-sheets that on 19.08.2004, time was sought and again on 14.09.2004 further time was sought. Apart from these two dates, which ultimately resulted in a delay of about two months, it cannot be said that the accused was responsible for any further delay.

6. In these circumstances, it does appear that the accused / petitioner cannot be kept in custody interminably and it does appear that the trial may not be concluded within a short period of time.

7. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh in each of the cases with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned. The petitioner shall also deposit a cash security of Rs.50,000/- each before the trial court which will remain in deposit for forfeiture on the orders of the trial court or in the appellate court wherever the matter may be pending. It is informed that the passport of the petitioner has already been surrendered to the investigating officer in the Bombay case. In any event, the passport will not be released to the petitioner without permission of the trial court concerned in Delhi. The petitioner shall also report to the Office of the Economic Offence Wing, Crime Branch, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi every two months.

The applications stand disposed of.

dusty.