Hon’ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The applicant is in jail in connection with offences under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. The allegation against the applicant is that he had opened a current account on 18.3.2004 in the name of Security Corporation India vide Account No. 412955806 (current) Indian Bank Greater Kailash I, Delhi. The complainant alleged that the applicant used to steel cheques from the office of complainant, C First Mahadeo Market Nayabas Sector 15 Noida. The said cheques were deposited in the fictitious account opened by the applicant and money was withdrawn, which was utilized for his personal use. The complainant suspected involvement of some employees of his office as well. A list of various cheques of different banks for different amount has been detailed in the first information report. The amount for which the complainant is alleged to have been cheated, was initially Rs. 87,000/- and odd but subsequently the amount escalated to Rs. 11,61,810/-. The total amount came to light at subsequent stages and, therefore, initially the total amount was not correctly mentioned in the first information report. Learned counsel has claimed bail on the basis of Section 437(6), Cr.P.C. which reads as under :

“(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.”

3. Bail application was moved before the Judicial Magistrate which was rejected on 14.9.2007 on the ground that the offence appears to be grave in nature. Learned counsel has placed a certified copy of the order sheet on record. On perusal of which, it transpires that charge was framed on 12.6.2007. After framing the charge, the statement of the complainant was recorded on 31.7.2007 but due to paucity of time, his cross-examination was deferred, thereafter the complainant has not turned up for cross-examination despite several dates have been fixed. After expiry of 60 days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, the bail application was moved before the Magistrate under Section 437 (6), Cr.P.C. which was rejected. Perusal of the order dated 14.9.2007, it is evident that the Magistrate has rejected the bail application on prior occasion on merits and the second bail application moved under Section 437(6), Cr.P.C. was rejected only because the first bail application was rejected on the ground that offence appeared to be grave in nature. Thereafter on the same ground a second bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge which was rejected for the same reasons, vide order dated 22.10.2007. Learned counsel has tried to impress on the Court the ground for bail under Section 437 (6), Cr.P.C. and also on merits as well. This is first bail application and the applicant is in jail since before the submission of charge-sheet on 17.3.2007. The applicant was working as Security Supervisor in the Company and the allegation against him is that he has cheated the company by forging and opening a fictitious account in the name of company without any authority and thereby misappropriated the various amounts deposited in the fake account, which was liable to be credited in the name of the company. The fact that the trial has commenced, charge has been framed and one of the witnesses has been examined in chief, is not disputed by the State. The certified copy of the order sheet confirms the submissions of the learned counsel that more than 60 days have lapsed after commencement of the trial. The offence is admittedly triable by a Magistrate, the applicant has continued