JUDGMENT :

Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.009 dated 08.01.2022 under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC registered at Police Station Manesar, District Gurugram.

2. The allegations against the petitioner as levelled in the FIR are that the complainant was defrauded by the son of the petitioner in collusion with few others and having approached the petitioner through one of the agents, threats of elimination were extended by the petitioner. It has also been averred that the petitioner always remained privy to the acts done by the main accused who happen to be his son and daughter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested by the investigating agency on 22.03.2022 whereas, upon conclusion of the investigation, challan stands filed on 11.04.2022. He further submits that besides the allegations of having extended threats to the agents of the complainant, the only other thing to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence is the transfer of an amount of Rs.39 Lakhs from the saving bank account of Parveen Yadav i.e. son of the petitioner to an account jointly maintained by the petitioner and his son. Learned senior counsel also points out that around 31 Lakhs out of the aforesaid amount came to be deposited on 02.09.2021, whereas, as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the cheques pertaining to huge amounts were handed over by the complainant party to the son of the petitioner on 21.09.2021 and 03.11.2021 i.e. post deposit of the aforementioned Rs.39 Lakhs to the account being run by the petitioner and his son. He further submits that the petitioner is a retired army personnel of 59 years of age and has suffered incarceration for a period of almost one year by now and the trial is likely to take some time and the charges have not been framed so far particularly when the offences are even triable by the Magistrate. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation , reported as 2012(1) SCC 40. The relevant para No.46 as relied upon is reproduced hereunder:

"46.We are conscious of the fact that the accused are charged with economic offences of huge magnitude. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardize the economy of the country. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency has already completed investigation and the charge sheet is already filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi. Therefore, their presence in the custody may not be necessary for further investigation. We are of the view that the appellants are entitled to the grant of bail pending trial on stringent conditions in order to ally the apprehension expressed by CBI."

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that during the investigation, it has been found that an amount of Rs.39 Lakhs was deposited through three different bank accounts being maintained by the petitioner and besides it, it has also been found that the petitioner extended threats to the complainant party and their/its representatives under the name of his son Parveen Yadav by stating that he was working at D.I.G.

5. While opposing the prayer made in the petition, learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner always remained in active connivance with the main accused i.e. his son and daughter who cheated the complainant party and obtained the huge amount of money amounting to Rs.150 Crores through various channels pe