JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J. (Oral):- This is an application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.67 dated 17.08.2009 registered at Police Station Boha, District Mansa under Sections 420, 409, 468, 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record including the impugned orders passed by learned Magistrate as well as learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, dismissing the bail applications of petitioner-accused. 3. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he is a proprietor of firm M/s Bishamber Dayal Honey Kumar. There are further allegations that he in connivance with main accused Darshan Singh, Branch Manager of Mansa Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Varah Branch committed fraud of Rs.5,81,24,923/-. Further allegations are that though Rs.41 lacs were deposited in the said bank, however, demand draft of Rs.255.72 lacs were shown to have been prepared from the said account by said co-accused Darshan Singh. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that as per version of the FIR, Rs.2,99,45,000/- were withdrawn by Darshan Singh and deposited in the accounts of his various relatives, detail of which has been given in the FIR. It has been further contended that however, none of the said relatives has been challaned in this case by the police. It has been further contended that challan was also not filed within 90 days of arrest of Darshan Singh, Branch Manager and hence, he was released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. Further submitted that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 16.04.2011 and that even trial has not commenced so far as even charge has not been framed. It has also been contended that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and hence, the petitioner be released on bail. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Sanjay Chandra Versus C.B.I., [2012(1) Law Herald (SC) 113] : 2011(4) RCR (Criminal) 898. 4. Bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant merely on the ground that it is a case of embezzlement of bank money to the tune of Rs.5,81,24,923/-. 5. However, the fact that the trial is not yet commenced and the other facts as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner have also not been disputed. 6. 5. However, the fact that the trial is not yet commenced and the other facts as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner have also not been disputed. 6. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Rather, the case is based on documentary evidence which has already been taken in possession by the police. The petitioner has been continuing in custody for the last more than one year. 7. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of petitioner Anil Kumar @ Titu is allowed. 8. Bail to the satisfaction of trial Court at Budhlada, District Mansa. ----------------------