JUDGMENT

S.K. Agarwal, J.(Oral)--By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.'), petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the learned trial court separating trial of the petitioner from remaining three accused persons and ordering that the trial would be taken up on day-to-day basis, in FIR No.242/2002, PS Sarojini Nagar, under sections 420/406/409/120-B IPC.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this case are as follows. Triveni Singh of M/s. Bajaj Capital Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Complainant') lodged a report with the police, stating that they are authorised by the Reserve Bank of India, to deal in, sale and purchase of Central and State Government securities. Petitioner was the Vice President of M/s. Home Trade Company Pvt. Ltd. and other three accused were its directors (hereinafter accused persons). Tile accused persons represented that they were authorised to trade in Government securities. On their representation, complainant entrusted to the accused persons Rs. 1.42 crore for purchase of some Government Securities. Accused persons did not deliver the securities, despite requests. After completion of investigations, challan was filed. Prosecution's case is that petitioner was the Vice President and authorised signatory of the accused Company and the contract notes were issued under his signatures. The accused persons did not have any authorisation or approval and were not eligible to trade in Government securities in the National Stock Exchange. It is alleged that accused persons cheated and defrauded the complainant and several other persons. Petitioner and other accused persons are admittedly involved in several cases of cheating and fraud, of several crores in Delhi as well as in other States. The modus operandi of the accused persons was to allure the general public, brokers and sub-brokers, who wanted to deal in Government securities, representing themselves to be professional and transparent company, thereby enticing people to purchase Government securities through them, when in fact the Government securities which they were selling and issuing contract notes, could not be sold by them. Petitioner is in custody for the last one year in this case. The co-accused, in the case, are confined in Surat and Nagpur in other cases. They are not being produced despite issuance of production warrants by the trial court. Petitioner filed an application for grant of bail and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi on 11th March, 2004 directing the trial court to take up the case on day to-day basis and to conclude the same preferably within six months from the next date of hearing, observing:

"The prosecution case against the petitioner is that while working as Vice President in M/s. Home Trade Limited, he signed various agreements/contract notes with the complainants for sale of government securities worth Rs.1,30,69,000/- in case FIR No. 242/02 and worth Rs. 1,42,65,000/- in case FIR No. 282/02 but these securities were never delivered Bail is claimed mainly on the ground that petitioner was only an employee of the company and was authorised signatory of the company. One such agreement appearing at page 67 of the trial record in case FIR No. 242/03 has been brought to my notice, which shows that this agreement purported to have been signed for sale of government securities described as 11.83% GOI 2014, which were not really in existence. No only that, amounts have been withdrawn from the Bank. At the time of seizure of the account by the I.O. only Rs. 2,00,000/- were found in the company's account. It would mean that money had gone to the company. As many as 22 cases have been registered in different States and total amount involves more than hundred crores. "

3. Learned trial court considering the above direction and the fact that the other co-accused in the case are not being produced from Surat and Nagpur separated the