by the petitioner were subsequent to the agreement; even if it is assumed that the said cheques were dishonoured, then the complainant in whose favour the cheques were issued had a remedy under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the petitioner is behind the bars from 18.11.2013; in spite of framing of the charges on 1.5.2014, the prosecution has not been able to examine a single witness; the first date for recording of the prosecution evidence was 29.5.2014 and thereafter the case was adjourned to 8.7.2014, 18.7.2014, 1.8.2014, 14.8.2014 and for today, i.e. 28.8.2014; in spite of service the material witnesses did not appear before the learned Trial Court, therefore, bailable warrants were issued for procuring their presence; the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the conspiracy hatched by him with his son Sumit Singla; concededly, the amount of `60,00,000/- or part thereof was not handed over to the petitioner; and that all the offences for which the petitioner has been charged are triable by the learned Magistrate Ist Class. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Vishal Jaiswal v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, MANU/PH/2398/2013 , a case decided by this Court vide order dated 21.8.2013 in CRM-M-9568 of 2013. 3. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the State assisted by Mr. Vipul Jindal, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature; in connivance with his son Sumit Singla, the
