Judicial directives require expedited trial proceedings amidst allegations of delaying tactics and substantial financial misappropriation.

O R D E R

1. The petitioner is alleged to have duped the banks with collusion and connivance with some bank officials. The total principal amount of the loan, which he has not paid so far, was more than Rs. 32 crores and with interest, it has now exceeded Rs. 85 crores. With a view to avoiding and evading trial, the petitioner has been adopting all delaying tactics. He did not even spare the High Court and made a deliberate false statement that he Signature Not Verified Digitawlly soignued blyd deposit Rs.32,01,74,712/- within one year, knowing fully well ARJUN BISHT Date: 2025.08.14

18:02:55 IST Reason:

that he had no intent to pay. On that assurance, the petitioner was directed to be released on anticipatory bail. However, the petitioner did not deposit a single penny. Consequently, the petitioner was taken into custody on 13.10.2020. The High Court again showed leniency and released the petitioner on bail without any adequate security for the misappropriated amount.

2. We may hasten to add that there are allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act against the then Branch Manager of the Bank, who is also a co-accused.

3. Leaving no stone unturned to stall the trial, the petitioner then approached the High Court for the quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings. That petition having been dismissed, the petitioner is now before us.

4. As the facts would speak for itself, the petitioner, with apparent and obvious reasons, is delaying the trial. In such a situation, the High Court or the Trial Court should not have become a mute spectator.

5. We would have imposed exemplary costs on the petitioner for wasting judicial time, but on the persuasion made by his learned counsel, we do not propose to impose any costs.

6. We, however, direct the Trial Court to take up the trial at least twice in a month, i.e., every fortnightly and conclude the trial as early as possible, but not later than six months. We request the High Court, through the Portfolio/Administrative Judge, to ensure that the above-mentioned directions are complied with in letter and spirit.

7. However, if the Trial Court reports that the petitioner or his learned counsel are adopting delaying tactics, in that case, not only should the concession of bail granted to the petitioner be cancelled, but we shall also be constrained to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner.

8. The Registrar General of the High Court is directed to submit a compliance report after three months.

9. Meanwhile, all the immovable assets of the petitioner, his companies or his family shall remain attached to secure the recovery of the public money, in the event, the charges are proved against him.

10. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.