The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in granting bail, especially in cases involving economic offences, and the need to balance the presumption of innocence and the objective of securing the accused's attendance at trial.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitoner-Giri Raj has filed the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No.287 dated 05.10.2016 registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Julana, District Jind, during pendency of trial.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code but after the investigation, the challan was presented under Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the charges were framed under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel also submits that the allegations in the FIR relate to non-payment or under payment of the bills raised by the complainant party which does not attract the criminal liability and cannot form the basis of criminal prosecution. The petitioner was working as an agent of Ram Dev International Limited, Karnal and any lapse on behalf of the principal, the agent cannot be held vicarious liable and no criminal liability can be fastened upon him. The allegations in the present case are that the paddy was procured but the payment was not forwarded to the commission agents and the amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is clear from the Bank Account statements of the petitioner's firm that the amount was disbursed in the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the commission agents. The petitioner received only 48,00,000/- in his bank account, out of which, Rs. 17,00,000/- was disbursed to various commission agents, which is clear from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court, it has not taken into consideration that earlier bail application was withdrawn as the charges were not framed by the trial Court. The complainants party has already availed the remedy by incorporating themselves as operational creditors of Ram Dev International Limited and the insolvency proceedings against the company are pending before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi, whereby the attempts are being made to recover the amount due towards the complainants and other commission agents by auctioning the properties, factory and buildings etc. The petitioner is in custody since 01.10.2017. The investigation has been completed; challan has been presented and the charges have also been framed. There are total 66 witnesses and the offence is triable by the Magistrate. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Sanjay Chandra vs CBI , (2011) 4 RCR(Criminal) 898, Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs C.B.I and another , (2012) 1 RCR(Criminal) 870, judgment of this Court in case Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab passed in CRM-M No.1685 of 2014 decided on 10.03.2014 as well as judgments of Delhi High Court in case Suresh Kalmadi vs CBI,2012 1 CCR 323, Mahesh Kumar vs Central Bureau of Investigation , (2014) 8 RCR(Criminal) 1650 in support of his arguments.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He also submits that serious allegations of cheating and misappropriation of amount are there and the period of custody undergone by the petitioner is less and also the fact that it is a second petition and the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel. I have also perused the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the file.

6. Earlier petition was filed before presentation of challan and framing of charges and the present petition has been filed under the changed