The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail, considering the seriousness of the charges and the potential danger of the accused tampering with evidence or absconding.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. By way of the above captioned application, the petitioner seeks regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the case FIR No. 110/2015 dated 21.08.2015, under Sections 201/409/420/467/468/477A/120B IPC, registered at Police Station- Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi.

2. In the instant petition, the petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.09.2015 and the charge sheet has been filed by the learned Trial Court on 01.10.2016.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and the allegations alleged in FIR No.110/2015, under Sections 201/409/420/467/468/477-A/120 B IPC, registered at Police Station-Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi is false.

4. He has further submitted that the petitioner was working as a Manger in Indian Overseas Bank in its branch at New Rajinder Nagar and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Manager in the month of June, 2015 and he was ordered to be transferred to Bikaner Branch of Indian Overseas Bank (Rajasthan). He has further submitted that instead of giving the relieving order to the petitioner, some highly placed bank officials played a game with the petitioner and got him involved in a false case and spoiled the unblemished career of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner was suspended by the Bank on 29.06.2015 by sending a suspension order at the residential address of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity to explain the facts. He has further submitted that a bare perusal of the charge sheet reveals that a sum of rupees two crores was deposited in the account of M/s. Power Paints (India) Pvt. Ltd and investigation against Director of the company namely Mr.Ved Prakash Jaitley and his driver Satish Kumar, as per the contents of the supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner, is pending.

5. He has further submitted that there is no whisper in the charge sheet that any amount is lying with the petitioner and the same is to be recovered from him. He has further submitted that the entire evidence against the petitioner is the so called documentary evidence which has been filed against the petitioner along with the charge sheet. He has further submitted that charge has already been framed against the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.09.2015 and not required for further investigation in the present case. He has further submitted that trial is not likely to conclude in near future and the continued incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose and prays that the petitioner be released on regular bail. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:

(i). Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. CBI & another, (2012) 4 SCC 134.

(ii). Ajay Madan v. State, 2015 SCC Online Del 12764.

(iii). Poojakhanna v. State, 2015 SCC Online Del 12763.

(iv). Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI, 2012 (127) DRJ 588.

(v). Jagdish Gupta v. State, 2015 SCC Online Del 12497.

(vi). Jitendra Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2016 SCC Online Del 1170.

(vii). Ashok Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Application No.1753/2015.

(viii). Anand Swaroop Arora v. State, 226 (2016) DLT 266.

(ix). Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, AIR 2012 SC 830.

(x). Manoranjana Sinh @ Gupta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2017 SC 769.

6. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the allegations alleged against the petitioner are very serious in nature and there is every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence and absconding in the event of his release, as during investigation his missing report was lodged by his family members.

7. According to the prosecution, the petitioner being an employee of the bank misappropriated the money entrusted to the bank and also cheated the complainant bank. He has further submitted that the petitioner