IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-37287 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.12.2010 Surjit Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. A.S. Barnala, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.109 dated 27.10.2007 registered at Police Station Bhadaur, District Barnala for the offences under Sections 409, 366, 363, 34 and 120-B IPC. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The son of the petitioner namely Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu was working as a Chowkidar with the Co- operative Society, Village Bihla. He had relation with one Veena Rani living in that area. On the intervening night of 26/27.10.2007, Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu took away a sum of `3,43,000/- of the aforesaid Co-operative Society. He went away with Veena Rani. FIR in this regard was registered, but Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu could not be arrested. He was declared a proclaimed offender on 7.11.2008. Thereafter, Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu was arrested on 13.10.2010 along with Veena Rani. During the course of investigation, it was brought out that Jeevan Inder Crl. Misc. No. M-37287 of 2010 [2] Singh @ Bittu had entrusted an amount of `1,05,000/- out of `3,43,000/- of the aforesaid Co-operative Society to his mother Smt. Surjit Kaur (petitioner). Accordingly, the petitioner was nominated as an accused in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is an aged lady and has been named as an accused three years after the incident. It is submitted that she has no concern with the amount that is said to have been taken away by her son Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu. In fact she has been doing menial labour jobs to make her livelihood. It is also contended that Bahadur Singh, Cashier and the son of the petitioner both are alleged to have embezzled the amount of the Co-operative Society, Village Bihla and it is not that the amount is to be recovered from the petitioner alone. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the son of the petitioner namely Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu is alleged to have taken away `3,43,000/- of the Co-operative Society, Village Bihla. He went away with one Veena Rani. Regarding the misappropriation of the amount, FIR has been registered against him. The son of the petitioner namely Jeevan Inder Singh @ Bittu could not be arrested and he was declared a proclaimed offender on 7.11.2008. Thereafter, he has been arrested on 13.10.2009 and it is during his interrogation that it was brought out that an amount of `1,05,000/- out of an amount of `3,43,000/- was entrusted with the petitioner. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been made an accused Crl. Misc. No. M-37287 of 2010 [3] after 3 years of the registration of the FIR is not of much significance as the son of the petitioner was arrested only on 13.10.2010 and it is thereafter that she is sought to be arrested for recovery of an amount of `1,05,000/-. Besides, it may be noticed that it is none other but the son of the petitioner who has named her as the person who had been entrusted with an amount of `1,05,000/-. Earlier the police had not proceeded against the petitioner and it is only when some material has come on record that she has been named. As regards the contention that the son of the petitioner alone is not involved in the embezzlement and that Bahadur Singh cashier is also involved, it may be noticed that it is the son of the petitioner who has stated that an amount of `1,05,000/- out of an amount of `3,43,000/- of the Co-operative Society, Village Bihla had been handed over to his mother (petitioner). Therefore, for carrying out effective and complete investigation and for recovering the amount of `1,05,000/-, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the petitioner surrenders before the police within 2 days from the receipt of copy of this order, her application for regular bail shall be considered by the concerned Court of competent jurisdiction within the next 2 days of its filing after excluding the period of police remand, if any. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 22, 2010 amit