- (1.) Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the incident is said to have occurred between 10.8.2010 to 24.5.2011, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 30.3.2012 but there is no plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. He next argued that the applicant is not in receipt of any money which has been embezzled by Smt. Poonam and Dipesh Jain along with the main culprits, namely, Pramod Jain and D.P.Singh and now he is being made an accused for the crime which he has not committed.He next argued that so far as trial is concerned, there are 83 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 3 witnesses have been examined.The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial. He further argued that the father of the applicant, namely, Jagat Singh has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.5.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.17927 of 2018. The other co-accused persons, namely, Atul Kumar Maheshwari & Saurabh Kumar Gupta have also been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.4.2018 and 12.4.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14733 of 2015 and Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9505 of 2015 respectively, copies of which have been annexed at pages-283 to 287 of the writ petition, hence, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 3.10.2014.
(3.) Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He pointed out that in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14733 of 2015 & Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9505 of 2015, the trial of the case has already been directed to be expedited by this Court vide orders dated 9.4.2018 and 12.4.2018 respectively.;