The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the conditions of bail and the court's reliance on evidence of money trail in reaching its decision.

ORDER :

1. This application is for successive bail in connection with the FIR being I-C.R. No.11216004200346 of 2020 registered with the Dabhoda Police Station, Gandhinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 420, 477A, 120B and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The charge-sheet in connection with the aforesaid offence came to be filed on 6.10.2020. Thereafter, the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. Application No.988 of 2020 for regular bail before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected on 21.10.2020. The applicant, thereafter, filed Criminal Misc. Application No.17866 of 2020 before this Court, and by order dated 3.2.2021, the application was disposed of as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh application if the trial does not commence within a period of six months. Accordingly, the applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No.17117 of 2021, which came to be allowed by order dated 13.1.2022, on several conditions including a condition for voluntary deposit of an amount of Rs.1 crore within a period of nine months.

3. It appears that as the applicant did not comply with the conditions of bail, the complainant filed S.L.P. (Criminal) No.1656 of 2022 before the Apex Court, which, ultimately came to be disposed of by order dated 25.1.2023, whereby the order dated 13.1.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No.17117 of 2021 came to be set-aside and the aforesaid application for bail stood restored for reconsideration by this Court.

4. The protection granted by this Court was continued till the matter was listed before this Court on 16.2.2023, which was thereafter continued under order dated 16.2.2023 by this Court till the matter was taken up finally.

5. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the FIR has been filed after a period of one year of the incident having taken place and to make it a serious offence, false grounds are raised by the complainant by giving it a colour of economic offence, though, at best, it can be termed to be an offence wherein the employee has siphoned off the money of its employer company.

6. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the complainant is representing a limited company which has its own mechanism of checks and balance regarding the accounts, and all the accounts of the company are required to be audited and, therefore, considering the period of offence as mentioned in the FIR, it is not believable that such activity of siphoning off the money would escape the attention of the auditors.

7. Learned advocate for the applicant vehemently submitted that the complainant has tried to encash upon a typographical error in connection with the date of arrest of the applicant mentioned in the order dated 13.1.2022 granting bail to the applicant. It is submitted that though the respondent complainant was aware that it was only a typographical error considering the immediate previous paragraphs of the order, still lot of weightage was given by the advocate for the complainant as if that was the only relevant consideration for enlarging the applicant on bail by the previous order of bail.

8. Learned advocate has submitted that the siphoning off the money from the accounts of the company as alleged in the investigation could not have gone unnoticed in today’s banking practice as any transaction in the company’s account would generate an alert on a registered mobile number and the investigating agency has failed to investigate as to whether such mobile alerts were given when the money allegedly has been siphoned off.

9. Learned advocate for the applicant has also emphatically argued that the complainant company itself is not a genuine company and its records are marred by adverse orders by the SEBI who has found the directors of the company indulging into insider trading activities and, therefore, the company itself is not of such a stature whose complaint can be entertained or given serious weightage.

10. Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that reference