ORDER : Mr. Sudesh Bansal, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Spl. PP for CBI so also perused the record placed before this Court including the order impugned herein dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge (CBI) No.2, Jaipur Metro-I in criminal case No.1/2016 titled as CBI v. Bharat Bomb and Ors. 2. Vide order impugned, application dated 02.06.2023 filed by the petitioner accused invoking powers of the Court under Section 91 and 207 Cr.p.C, seeking directions against CBI/prosecution to disclose all the relied/unrelied documents collected by the Investigation Officer (IO) and to produce/supply statements of all persons recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., in the present matter has been rejected. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on written compliant of Shri. C. Sridhran, DGM, Syndicate Bank, Field General Manager's Office, New Delhi in respect of fraud allegedly committed by bank officials and a group of customers by resorting to discounting of fake/forged cheques, fake bills and arranging over-draft limit against the non-existent LIC policies aggregating to Rs. 1055.78/- crores in the two branches of Syndicate Bank at Jaipur and Udaipur, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) proceeded investigation and after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed on 14.06.2016 against as many as five persons including accused petitioner, they are namely (1) Bharat Bomb, (2) Shankar Lal Khandelwal, (3) Vipul Kaushik (petitioner herein), (4) Santosh Kumar Gupta and (5) Smt. Usha Gupta, for offences under Section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 IPC and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other substantive offences. It has been stated that charges for such offences have been framed against all above named five charge-sheeted accused persons on 30.11.2018 and at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence, after recording statements of about 16 witnesses, one of the accused i.e. petitioner Vipul Kaushik filed an application dated 02.06.2023 relying upon Rule 4 of the Draft Criminal Rules of Practice, 2021 (for short "Rules of 2021") promulgated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of RE: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in [ (2021) 10 SCC 598 ], so also resorting to the provision of Sections 91 and 207 of Cr.P.C., seeking disclosure/production of all relied/unrelied documents and statements of all persons, collected by the I.O. during investigation. 4. This application filed by and on behalf of petitioner accused was replied by the CBI on 14.07.2023 stating inter alia that documents and statements related to the charge-sheet filed against five accused persons have already been placed on the record of the Court and copies thereof, have also been furnished to accused persons including the petitioner. It was disclosed that during the investigation, role of other persons other than the five named accused persons in the FIR, has surfaced and there is involvement of about more than four hundred bank accounts, hence, further investigation in the FIR is on-going and pending against suspect firms, companies, proprietorship and there Directors, partners, proprietors, etc. in which the bank funds were diverted/siphoned off. It was submitted by the CBI that in view of on-going further investigation in the matter, the list of unrelied documents/all witnesses is not possible to be provided/produced before the Court at this stage. It appears that during pendency of such application, seeking disclosure of all relied/unrelied documents and for production of statements of all persons recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C, an another application was also moved by the petitioner seeking stay of trial and not to progress with criminal trial until the application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is decided and documents sought to be proceeded, be disclosed/produced by CBI. It appears that learned trial Court, at that juncture, heard parties on the pending application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. itself, and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 18.08.2023. 5. It appears that learned trial Court, at that juncture, heard parties on the pending application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. itself, and dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 18.08.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is expedient and in the interest of justice that accused be supplied with all the relied/unrelied documents and the statements recorded so far under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., because in absence of such documents, same would cause immense difficulty to the accused for defending himself in the present case. In support, Rule 4 of the Rules of 2021, has also been referred and following judgments has been relied upon:- 1. P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu [2022 SCC Online SC 1543]. 2. Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ (2023) 2 SCC 353 ]. 3. Central Bureau of Investigation v. INX Media Pvt. Ltd. [2021 SCC Online Del 4932]. 4. Kalyani Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. Prem Prakash v. Union of India [2023 SCC Online Jhar 248]. 6. E-converso, learned counsel for CBI has contended that as far as petitioner and other accused persons against whom charge-sheet has been filed, all related documents along with statements pertaining to the petitioner have been produced in the Court alongwith the charge-sheet and copies thereof too has already been furnished upon the petitioner, however, if petitioner needs any other relevant document, to make his defence, petitioner should provide list of such required documents. He submits that the case of prosecution against the petitioner and other accused persons, charge-sheeted so far, is based on the evidence collected there-against and such material has already been produced before the Court along with the charge-sheet, hence, there is no prejudice to the petitioner accused by non-disclosure/non-production of other unrelied documents and statements of all other persons which do not pertain to them. He submits that it is practically not possible for the prosecution to supply all documents to the petitioner relating to four hundred bank accounts, which are not related to the petitioner at all and in respect of them, further investigation is continuing, hence, the vague application filed by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court under inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. Heard. Considered. 8. At the outset, it is not in dispute that documents and statements on the basis of which CBI submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and other four persons, in total five accused persons under Section 120B r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474 IPC and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been produced in the Court along with charge-sheet and copies thereof too have been furnished upon accused persons including the petitioner. The object of Rule 4 of the Rules 2021 is that, it must be ensured by the trial judge that all material which is necessary to be produced by prosecution for a proper and just trial, including to make a defence by the accused persons, should be ensured to be produced on record and supplied to accused persons. Similar ratio has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicated hereinabvoe. Petitioner has not detailed out any list of documents or statements which are required to him for the purpose of making out his defence in the present criminal case. In absence thereof, it may not be assumed by any stretch of imagination that non-disclosure and non-production of other unrelied documents and statements of other persons, which are not related to charge-sheet filed against the petitioner, would cause any prejudice to petitioner or would be amount to deprive the petitioner to make his defence. Documents and statements on the basis of which the petitioner has been charge-sheeted, have already been furnished upon him. 9. Therefore, it appears that petitioner has invoked the provision of Sections 91 and 207 Cr.P.C., after promulgation of Rule 4 of the Rules 2021 by the Hon'bel Supreme Court, without any foundational basis or without indicating the trial of required documents which have not been supplied to him and how are necessary for his defence. The application filed by the petitioner is wholly silent and vague, does not disclose any cogent reason, showing details of required documents and statements, required to make out defence by the petitioner. 10. In the light of fact that the present criminal case involved, an embezzlement of huge amount, wherein four hundred bank accounts are involved, and investigation is going on, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, rejecting the application of petitioner. 11. 10. In the light of fact that the present criminal case involved, an embezzlement of huge amount, wherein four hundred bank accounts are involved, and investigation is going on, this Court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, rejecting the application of petitioner. 11. The proposition of law sought to be pressed in service, does not apply to the case of petitioner and the claim of petitioner to not provide the whole documents including unrelied documents and statements of all other persons is baseless, without furnishing the subject details/list of relevant documents and merely in air and hypothetical. The purpose of filing application, obviously appears to delay the progress of criminal trial. Hence, the application filed by the petitioner may not be treated as filed with bonafide and fair intention. 12. In view of afore-referred discussions and reasons, this Court does not find any good reason, warranting interference in the impugned order to prevent ends of justice. Thus, the petition is hereby dismissed. 13. Interim stay order dated 09.10.2023 stands vacated and the trial Court is free to proceed with the trial of present criminal case in accordance with law. 14. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of.