PRITI AGARWAL Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. perused the material brought on record.

(2.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the present case with malafide intention. He further submits that the applicant is said to have signed the sale deed in question in which the loan was disbursed by the concerned Bank and the said sale deed was found to be fictitious one. He next argued that the applicant is not in receipt of any money which has been embezzled by Saurabh Kumar Gupta and Dipesh Jain along with the main culprits, namely, Pramod Jain and D.P.Singh and now she is being made an accused for the crime which he has not committed. He next argued that so far as trial is concerned, there are 83 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 3 witnesses have been examined. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial. He further argued that the co-accused persons, namely, Atul Kumar Maheshwari & Saurabh Kumar Gupta have also been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 9.4.2018 and 14.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14733 of 2015 & Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9505 of 2015 respectively, copies of which have been annexed at pages 262 to 265 of the writ petition. The co-accused Jitendra has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2018 in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.18323 of 2018, copy of which has been produced and the same is taken on record, hence, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 17.4.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He pointed out that in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.14733 of 2015 & Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 9505 of 2015, the trial of the case has already been directed to be expedited by this Court vide orders dated 9.4.2018 and 12.4.2018 respectively.