The main legal point established is that bail can be granted based on the lack of evidence tampering opportunities, lengthy pre-trial detention, and the accused's clean record.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

1. This is a bail application seeking grant of regular bail filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being accused in FIR No.834/2021 dated 27.12.2021 registered at P.S.: Kalkaji, Delhi under Sections 420/408/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The said FIR No.834/2021 was registered on 27.12.2021 for the alleged offence committed between June 2020 to October 2020. The applicant, since his arrest on 10.09.2022, is in judicial custody. Investigation qua the applicant is complete and the chargesheet has been filed. The previous bail application of the applicant was rejected vide the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 03.03.2023.

3. The FIR involved arises out of a complaint lodged by the complainant against her ex-accountant-applicant qua online transfer of around Rs.3.5 Lakhs done by him from her State Bank of India [Hereinafter referred to as "SBI"] savings bank account as also of around Rs.39.59 Lakhs from her SBI Overdraft Account without her knowledge or consent to his own SBI savings bank account opened in the same branch as that of the complainant, and the Bank has already levied an interest of around Rs.3,00,000/- on the said overdraft and is continuing to charge interest from the complainant. As per FIR, the applicant also misappropriated money fraudulently transferred from the account of the complainant towards GST payments of third parties. As per the FIR, the applicant managed to carry on these transactions by changing all the personal and contact details of the complainant in the Bank with the help of an employee of the SBI bank. As per FIR, the applicant, pleading forgiveness, offered to transfer ownership of the Uttam Nagar property namely First Floor, 27A, Prem Nagar, to the complainant, but the same, still has not been done.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has no antecedents and that he has been falsely implicated and all allegations made against him are vague and implausible. He states that it is hard to believe that the complainant was unaware of the aforesaid transactions being made from her accounts stretching over a period of five months. He further states that he could not have made any changes in the personal details submitted with the Bank without the prior written request of the account holder, i.e. the complainant, and thus the allegations against him are baseless. He also states that there is an inordinate delay of more than one year in registration of the FIR. Relying upon Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, he submitted that the applicant was arrested without following the mandate laid down therein. He lastly submits that in any event, as the present case involves documentary evidence, there is no scope of the applicant tampering with it and no recovery has to be affected from the applicant as the investigation qua him stands completed and the charge sheet has also been filed. He thus prays that he be released on regular bail till the completion of trial in the said FIR.

5. Notice was issued and the Nominal Roll and Status Report of the applicant were called for. The Nominal Roll filed thereafter shows that there are no other cases pending against the applicant and his overall conduct is satisfactory.

6. The State in its Status Report has opposed the grant of bail stating that the applicant had admitted the online transactions and after pleading forgiveness and as part compensation had also offered to transfer the ownership of the Uttam Nagar property even though it was not in his name. Learned APP for the State, supported by learned counsel for the complainant, submits that during investigation, bank accounts of the complainant and the applicant revealed transactions inter-se and that the applicant confessed of losing the cheated amount in multi-level