IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINALL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1087  OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.2699 of 2009

Virender Kumar Yadav ...Appellant(s)

Versus

C.B.I. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18th March, 2003 passed by  

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous (Second) Bail  

Application No.31397 pf 2008.  By the impugned order the High Court has rejected  

the  Second  Bail  Application  preferred  by  the  appellant,  who  is  facing  trial  for  

offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal  

Code as also under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

It  is  submitted  by  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant that the appellant is in custody since 14th September, 2007 and that after  

the filing of the charge sheet on 19th April, 2007 there has been no progress in the  

trial.  Learned counsel has also pointed out

..2/-

:2:

that one of the co-accused, namely, Rajender Singh, Assistant Manager of the Bank  

has already been granted bail vide order dated 7th January, 2008.  Learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., on the other hand, submits that the charges  

against the appellant being serious involving embezzlement of crores of rupees, the  

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and bearing in  

mind the fact that after the filing of charge sheet on 19th April, 2007, there has been  

no progress in the trial,   we are of the opinion that it is a fit case where the benefit of  

bail deserves to be extended to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside and it is  

directed that the appellant shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond  

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) with two sureties in the like  

amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

                                       ..................J.               (D.K. JAIN)  

                                ..................J.

             (R.M. LODHA) New Delhi, MAY 15, 2009.