JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

BAIL APPLN. 4330/2021

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 IPC read with Section 482 CrPC seeking bail in ECIR/12/DLZO-I/2021 dated 30.01.2021.

2. The applicant was arrested on the night of 12/13.08.2021 at 00:45 hrs. in the abovementioned ECIR, and thereafter remanded to Police Custody (PC) of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a period of 14 days until 25.08.2021.

3. Thereafter, the applicant has been remanded to Judicial Custody (JC) from time to time and continues to remain incarcerated in Judicial Custody in Tihar Jail, Delhi.

4. The applicant had previously preferred two regular bail applications before the learned Trial Court and both have been rejected vide orders dated 05.10.2021 and 01.11.2021 respectively.

5. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present bail application are as under:

6. On 31.12.2020, the CBI registered a FIR bearing No. RC0742020E0014 against M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (hereinafter called as SBFL) and Mr. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Director/Promoter of M/s SBFL under Section 120B read with Section 420/467/468/471 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as PC Act).

7. The FIR was registered based on a written complaint dated 11.06.2020 lodged by the State Bank of India (SBI). The allegations in the FIR pertain to financial irregularity and siphoning of funds in relation to credit facilities obtained by SBFL from a consortium of banks led by the SBI and thereby causing a loss of Rs.3269.42 crores.

8. The Ld counsel for the applicant states that the applicant was not named as an accused/suspect in the FIR. As per the FIR, the review period/period under enquiry of offence was between 2013 and 2017.

9. The applicant was an internal auditor of the SBFL for the financial year 2008-09 till 2013-14, and a statutory auditor of SBFL for the financial year 2006-07.

10. In the column No.12 of the FIR, the observations of the I.O. read as under:

11. It is submitted that the findings of the I.O. clearly show that the account of SBFL was declared NPA on account of commercial reason and, more importantly, there are no apparent mala fides in the monitoring of the account though there are some omissions/instances of negligence.

12. Based upon the FIR, the respondent Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed the ECIR in which the applicant was not named as an accused.

13. It is further submitted that before the learned ACMM, the respondent ED on 25.01.2022 has made a statement that it needed two and a half months for completing its investigation. Thereafter, on 22.04.2022, the respondent requested for and was granted more time to complete its investigation.

14. It is also submitted that the `triple test' for grant of bail laid down by various judgments are as under:

i. Flight risk

ii. Influencing any witness

iii. Tampering with evidence.

15. The learned Sessions Court in its order dated 18.11.2021 has given all 3 findings in favour of the applicant which have not been challenged by the respondent.

16. The order dated 18.11.2021 records as under:

"11. So far as assessment of the merits of the present application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is concerned, the first step has to be to apply the `triple test'. The applicant is not a flight risk since his pas