( 1 ) THE petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 226/98 registered under Sections 420/406/409/120-B Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that the petitioner is in custody for more than 26 months (since 6th May, 1998 ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:

( 3 ) A complaint was Filed by Major General Ranjit Singh (complainant) with the police station Prasad Nagar, Delhi. In the complaint, it is alleged by the complainant that he was enticed by the Directors and officials of the Hoffland Gorup of Companies to deposit the money. It is also alleged that after maturity of deposits, repayments have not been made despite persistent demands, though he was given categoric assurance that the money would be refunded after the maturity of deposits. It is also alleged that like the complainant hundreds of other investors had deposited their life time savings with the Hoffland Group of Companies. In most cases neither the principal nor the interest amount has been refunded despite all kind of assurances. A number of FIRs have been lodged against the petitioner, against B. B. Sharma (Chairman and Managing Director) and others and they are pending in various courts all over the country.

( 4 ) IN the petition, it is stated that the petitioner is a highly qualified young man of 28 years and is a victim of circumstances. It is further stated that the petitioner s relations were/are in the management of Hoffland Group of Companies and the petitioner was pursuing studies in Delhi, therefore, his relations had put him on the Board of Directors of one of the Group companies, namely, Hoffland Share Shoppe Ltd. It is mentioned in the petition that the appointment of the petitioner on the Board of Directors of this company was only symbolic and merely a gesture towards the petitioner. In fact the petitioner never participated in the day to day affairs or functioning of the company and was not concerned in any manner with this company. It is also mentioned that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner and no incriminating documents have been recovered by the police from the petitioner. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that he is languishing in jail for more than 26 months without trial and even the charge has not yet been framed. It is stated that the petitioner cannot be put behind bars indefinitely without trial. This clearly violates petitioner s constitutional and legal rights.

( 5 ) THE petitioner moved the court of the learned ASJ and then this court for the grant of bail but his bail application were rejected.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the custody of the petitioner without trial is gross infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. He also submitted that for the aforesaid offences, the petitioner can t be kept in custody without trial indefinitely.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner stated that when the co-accused, K. C. Aggarwal has been granted bail then there seems to be no justification in detaining the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 256/99 tilted V. K. Sharma v. Union of India decided on 28. 3. 2000 and some other cases of similarly placed accused. The Lordships of the Supreme Court released accused V. K. Sharma who had collected hundreds of crores from thousands of investors and hundred of FIRs and complaints are pending against him in various parts of the country, on the ground that the accused is in custody for about 16 months and cannot be kept in jail indefinitely without trial.

( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in the said case directed that "if the petitioner arrested in connection with any criminal case in his capacity as Managing Director/director of JVG Group of companies the arresting officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer"

( 9