The court considered the duration of custody, progress of trial, and principles of parity and Supreme Court guidelines for granting bail for certain offences in deciding to grant bail to the petitioner.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.0128 dated 14.03.2018 registered under Sections 477-A, 468, 424, 420, 409, 405, 34 and 120A of IPC, 1860 and under Section 3 of Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 2013 at Police Station New Colony, District Gurugram, Haryana.

2. FIR was lodged on the complaint of one Dinesh Jain, as per which, in 2013, Tribhuvan Kumar Parnami induced his brother-in-law Surender Kumar Jain to invest money with them with the assurance of good return of interest @ 12 to 18% and that amount of ?29 lacs was invested. Accused paid interest for some time but thereafter stopped making any payment. On demand, accused not only refused to pay, rather threatened the investors.

3. It was found during investigation that not only the complainant but various other investors were duped with the total amount of more than ? 12 crores. It was further found during investigation that amount had been deposited in the name of various Companies i.e. M.R. Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., GL Parnami Marketing Company, Signature Finance Pvt. Ltd, etc., in which petitioner was also one of the Director.

4. It is contended by learned counsel that petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2021; that after investigation, challan has already been filed and trial is likely to take long time. It is further submitted that main accused Tribhuvan Parnami has already been allowed bail by this High Court vide order dated 12.05.2022. Similarly, all other co-accused, namely, Raman Parnami, Akshya Parnami and Shashi Parnami are already on bail. None of the complainants have alleged to give any money to the petitioner, nor the petitioner is a beneficiary to the crime proceeds. Learned counsel further contends that most of the complainants have admitted that interest has been paid to them for some time and that it is due to changed market scenario that finances were struck and thus, it is a case of business failure, due to which accused were unable to honor their business commitments and that there was no malafide intention.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others, (petition for Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No.5191/2021) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 07.10.2021 to contend that offences in question being punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, so he is entitled for bail. Further reliance is placed upon Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, 2011(&5) ACC 934, in which after noticing that accused were charged with economic offences of huge magnitude but at the same time the fact that investigation was already complete and presence of the accused was not necessary for further investigation, bail was allowed by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. Opposing the bail petition, it is contended by learned State Counsel that petitioner along with co-accused duped various investors of the huge amount of more than ?12 crores, which was deposited in the name of different companies, in which petitioner is one of the Director. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in two more cases of similar nature arising out of FIR No.144 dated 11.04.2018 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurugram under Sections 405, 409, 420, 424, 477-A, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2013 and FIR No.129 dated 14.03.2018 under the same provisions of law, registered at Police Station New Colony, Gurugram. It is further contended by learned State Counsel that in case petitioner is allowed bail, he may tamper with the evidence, influence the witnesses and abscond from justice. Prayer is made for dismissal of the petition.

7. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and appraised the record carefully.

8. Co-accused Tribhuvan Parnami, specifically named in the FIR and whose case is admittedly on parity with t