Crl. Misc. No. M-35221 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-35221 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 03, 2010 Sudhir Bansal .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sudhir Bansal has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.123 dated 25.08.2008, under Sections 420, 422, 467, 468, 470, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar, District Ambala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner was President of the Managing Committee of Co-operative Society. Audit team reported embezzlement of Rs.3,23,35,080.33 paise in the funds of the Society by the petitioner and his seven co-accused. Consolidated FIR No.133 dated 10.09.2008 (Annexure Crl. Misc. No. M-35221 of 2009 2 P-4) was lodged regarding the same. In that case, charge had been framed regarding embezzlement of Rs.17,50,000/- and Rs.1,45,324/- and additional charge was also framed for Rs.89,18,485/-. However, the said charges were set aside and fresh charge has been framed for total amount of Rs.89,18,485/- only. However, seven other FIRs including the instant FIR were lodged by individual creditors and in the said seven FIRs, total embezzled amount, for which charges have been framed, is Rs.1,58,14,843/-, which allegedly includes the amount involved in FIR No.133 mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has already been granted bail in FIR No.133, vide order dated 21.05.2009 (Annexure P-7) by this Court. However, in the said bail order, amount misappropriated is mentioned to be about Rs.19 lacs only. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2008 i.e. for almost one year and five months. This factual position is not controverted by learned State counsel, after seeking instructions from SI Sat Pal. The case is triable by Magistrate. Trial is likely to take long time because it is stated that no witness has yet been examined in the seven separate FIRs, although two of the said seven cases are fixed for today for prosecution evidence. It is also stated that only one witness has been examined in FIR No.133 case. There is a long list of witnesses in the cases and trial is likely to take time. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ambala. It goes without saying that in view of the heavy amount involved, bonds of heavy amounts shall be required to be furnished by the petitioner, as may be directed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Crl. Misc. No. M-35221 of 2009 3 Magistrate, Ambala. The petitioner shall also deposit his passport, if any, with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ambala while furnishing bail bonds and if the petitioner claims that he has no passport, he shall furnish affidavit to this effect. February 03, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE