The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of parity and entitlement to bail based on the circumstances of the case.

P.S.TEJI, J.

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail in R.C. No.221/2013 E 0001 under Section 120-B/420/467/468 of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66/43 of I.T. Act, 2000 in P.S. CBI, SPE, EOU-IX, EO-III against the order dated 26th October, 2015 passed by the Special Judge NDPS, New Delhi in Bail Application No.3986/2015.

2. The argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that there are seven accused in the present case and the main beneficiary of M/s Bhavana Exports in whose favour the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-is alleged to have been transferred, was not even arrested and presently, he is on Court bail.

3. Similarly, the other five accused are on bail except the accused Mr.Jaideep Rastogi who, as per the chargesheet, happened to be on the seat on that day. Further submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the role assigned to the petitioner is not even at par with the beneficiary and seeks bail on grounds of parity. He further submitted that the petitioner was not beneficiary in the present case. No entry was made by him and he was just part of the outsourced employment of the bank.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that no cash amount has been recovered from the petitioner, no money transaction is on record in the account of the petitioner and there is no iota of evidence whether oral or documentary, against the petitioner showing him beneficiary of the alleged fraud. It has further been submitted that document no.33, which is the pass book of the petitioner itself, shows that the petitioner was working in the complainant bank even after lodging the complaint for about a year and even the bank officials did not say any word against the petitioner and that the father of the petitioner already sold ancestral property on 13th June, 2011 and from the said sale proceeds, the properties, which has been alleged, have been purchased in the name of the petitioner.

5. The circumstances of the present case reveals that the amount of Rs.50,00,0000 /-was transferred and the petitioner was outsourced employee for the purpose of making the transfer entry of the bank. As per the chargesheet, the accused Mr.Jaideep Rastogi happened to be on duty on the relevant day. The role attributed to the present petitioner is having less gravity than the main accused as the entry attributed is to Mr.Jaideep Rastogi. As per the case of the prosecution, the allegation levelled against the accused is that he had purchased the properties of the value of Rs.1,33,00,000/-The submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the properties alleged to be purchased in the name of the petitioner, has nothing to do with the alleged transaction and are not subject to any attachment by the investigating agency during the investigation and even prior to it. There is no application pending before the Trial Court for the attachment of the properties. Even then, the petitioner offered that he is ready to furnish indemnity bond to the effect that he is having title and possession of the properties in his name and shall maintain status quo during the pendency of the trial.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner is at par with the other accused persons who were not arrested and that the petitioner is behind bar since 28th November, 2014. Since the trial is likely to take long time, bail of the present petitioner is sought in the present case.

7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI has submitted that in the present case, the chargesheet was filed in the Court of learned CMM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 24th February, 2015 against the accused persons namely Bajrang Gupta; Jaideep Rastogi; Gaurav Bansal; Gaurav Aggarwal, Ashutosh Singhal; Ashok Kada@Rinku & Raj Varshney who, in furtherance of conspiracy, w