Criminal Misc. No.M-31081 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-31081 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.12.2008 Rajinder Bhalla ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Harsh Bungar, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General,Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. The first regular bail plea of the petitioner came to be declined by this Court vide order dated 16.9.2008. There is, however, a change of circumstances inasmuch as the challan has come to be filed in the meantime. In support of the averment that the Investigating Agency had not been able to find any material against the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites the attention of this court to the following observations made in the course of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. “Thus from the investigation carried out as well as enquiry report Surinder Arjan is found to be responsible for all the embezzlement as well as defalcation in account. The amount received under donation as well as the donation receipts as well as small aids received from school which was received by Surinder Arjan were got deposited by him through Pawan Kumar who was employed as daily wager. Pawan Kumar Criminal Misc. No.M-31081 of 2008 -2- **** used to make an entry in the ledger book and disburse the amount and Surender Arja used to sign the receipts. In this manner Surinder Arjan being an agent and President of the Durgiana Mandir Committee carried along with him bill books, receipt books, ledger and other account books and cheque books in order to hide his illegal activity after an amount of Rs.39 lacs had fallen short. From my entire investigation one thing is clear that the allegations levelled by the complainant with regard to embezzlement of accounts of the Durgiana Mandir, cheating, tress passing, theft and defalacation in accounts are found to be true. All this has happened during the Presidentship of Surinder Arjan and he is responsible for this.” In the course of the hearing of earlier bail plea, the State presentation was to the effect that “the Toshakhana, where valueables of the Mandir including (Kisan Vikas Patras and jewellary etc.) are trained, were sealed under the orders of the Executive Authority. The petitioner and his associates broke open the lock and obtained LIC mutual funds worth Rs.10 lacs, SBI shares worth Rs. 15 lacs and also Indira Vikas Patras worth Rs.10 lacs. The LIC mutual funds, SBI shares and Indira Vikas Patras were got encashed by the petitioner and maturity proceeds thereof were not accounted for in the record. The petitioner, who was General Secretary of the Mandir Committee, also did not file any Income Tax Return during the relevant period. It is also argued that a grant of Rs. 3 lacs, received in the name of petitioner, in his capacity as General Secretary of the Mandir Committee from Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan had also been embezzled. It is further argued that donations worth Rs. 15 lacs Criminal Misc. No.M-31081 of 2008 -3- **** have been posted in the ledger but not accounted for in the record.” In the context of that presentation, I called upon the learned State counsel to indicate what exact material the Investigating Agency had been able to obtain to prove the charge against the petitioner under the above items. SI Jaimal Singh, who has turned up to brief the learned State counsel, is not in a position to invite the attention of this Court to any material which may have been collected by the Investigating Agency to prove the charge against the petitioner under the above items. SI Jaimal Singh states that he is not the Investigating Officer and he has been sent by the Investigating Officer Balbir Singh who is otherwise available at the Police Station. He has brought along the police file. The State counsel informs that the instructing police official present has not been able to invite her attention to any material collected by the Investigating Agency to prove the charge against the petitioner under the above items. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. December 23, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE