The seriousness of economic offences, especially those involving public funds, and the role and responsibility of individuals in positions of authority were central to the court's decision.

Suresh kait, J.

1. In the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 03.11.2011 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Central District, Delhi dismissed the bail application of the petitioner.

2. The facts of the instant case in brief are that vide FIR No.630/2006 dated 21.11.2006 by the Economic Offence Wing of Delhi Police at Sri Niwas Puri police station, has been registered under Section 406/409/ 420/ 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860. From the date of registration of the FIR, Look Out Circular (LOC) was opened against the petitioner so that he could not flee from India.

3. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that he was regularly joining the investigation as and when called upon by the investigating officer of Economic Offence Wing of Delhi. The petitioner filed various documents before the investigating agency.

4. In the year 2010, the investigation of the case was handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by way of an administrate order apparently because of the reasons that there were many cases of similar nature which were pending against ‘National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Limited’ (NAFED).

5. The petitioner also joined investigation before CBI on various dates and also filed some documents relating to the present FIR. The seizure memo establishes that the petitioner had been joining the investigation before the IO. However, finally he was arrested on 26-27th September, 2011 by CBI at Bhuvneshwar, Orissa.

6. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the petitioner earlier moved bail application before concerned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate where his application for concession of interim bail was turn down vide order dated 18.10.2011.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner, on 19.10.2011 moved a regular bail application before learned Sessions Court which was heard on the same day. Meanwhile, the petitioner had prayed for an interim bail on the ground of Nikaha (marriage) ceremony of his only sister, which was to be solemnized on 21.11.2011. Vide order dated 20.11.2011, the prayer for interim bail was declined and notice to CBI was issued for 31.10.2011. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide order dated 03.11.2011, dismissed the regular bail application of the petitioner.

8. The instant application is second in row.

9. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that under the changed circumstances, and on the basis of the records available in the present proceedings, the petitioner has filed the copy of the FIR and the RC under which the Sections under IPC have been invoked against him. Out of all the allegations contained in the FIR and in which the Sections of IPC are invoked are not at all applicable on the present petitioner.

10. The petitioner has asserted that since then the FIR was registered on 21.11.2006, the applicant consistently has been cooperating in the investigation. There are two investigating agencies involved in the present case and none of the agencies would have any grievance regarding non-appearance of the applicant. The applicant is a resident of Cuttack, Orissa, still he has been the first person to extent all possible cooperation to the investigating agency.

11. Learned counsel has further submitted that the allegations in the FIR and subsequent investigation hinges upon the documents which are the part of the record before NAFED. The investigating agency has seized all those documents. It is not the case of the prosecution that the case is depending upon any oral evidence. The applicant has already been confronted with the documents concerning with the transaction alleged to have been taken place under the command of the applicant.

12. Learned Senior Advocate had further submitted that the investigating agency has so far failed to bring any allegations against the applicant except sweeping remarks regarding the conspiracy. There has also been no allegation