In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.40617 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:18.8.2010 Bhagwati Charan .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. No.40617 of 2010: Notice of the criminal miscellaneous to Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. K.C. Gupta, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice. The documents (Annexure-P.1 colly.) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application are taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2009: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 21.4.2008 for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC. Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 [2] The FIR has been registered on the basis of a letter addressed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Barara to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala with respect to the inquiry conducted at Maharana Pratap National College, Mullana (`College' – for short). It is submitted by the complainant-Satpal Singh that the College had received a grant of Rs.12 Lacs from the local Member of Parliament out of the Member Parliament Local Area Development (`MPLAD' – for short) grant for the year 2006-07. Out of the said grant of Rs.12 Lacs, 20 computers, books for the library and equipments for gymnasium were to be purchased for the College. Satpal Singh-complainant had obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. It was alleged that the grant of Rs.12 Lacs had been misused by the College administration. An inquiry was conducted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. During inquiry, it was observed that the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of this grant was Smt Ashima Joshi, Principal of the College. It was alleged by her that she was not aware whether the grant of Rs.12 Lacs had been received or not. The President of the College, namely, Major Swaraj Pal forcibly got her to sign on some cheques and documents on the basis of which 12 computers were received in the College. Regarding the material for the gymnasium and library, she did not know anything. In the further inquiry insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it was brought out that 12 computers had been supplied by the petitioner which were of sub-standard quality and were locally assembled. It was observed that in the year 2006, the cost of the computer was not more than Rs.25,000/- on the basis of the configuration which was supplied. Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 [3] However, the cost of 12 computers that were purchased, it was observed that an amount of Rs.2.5 Lacs was given as an advance payment to Shri Bhardwaj i.e. the petitioner. Thereafter, the amount was again deposited in the M.C. Account of the College. It was observed that from the amount of Rs.12 Lacs, Rs.9 Lacs have been embezzled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Ashima Joshi, who was the Principal of the College, has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner supplied the material on the basis of demand made and the price was received by him. There is no question of any embezzlement on his part. It is submitted that apart from the computers the petitioner had done other works also, the details of which is mentioned in break-up of comparative statement of computers (Annexure-P.1 Colly.). Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Apex Court Judgments 137 (SC). In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to carry out effective investigations. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender. It is also submitted that sub-standard computers were supplied; besides, custodial interrogation is required so as to ascertain the other aspects of the case. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The allegations against the petitioner are that he has supplied 12 sub-standard computers which were locally assembled to the College. An inquiry was conducted by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, during which Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 [4] it was brought out that out of the grant of Rs.12 Lacs, a sum of Rs.9 Lacs had been misappropriated in collusion with the petitioner who is running the firms M/s Arya Bhatt Computers and M/s New Sainik Traders. The case relates to embezzlement of the MPLAD grant; besides, supply of sub- standard material. The fact that Smt. Ashima Joshi, Principal of the College has been granted pre-arrest bail, is not of any consequence. It may be noticed that in the said case it was the stand of the petitioner therein that the responsibility for receipt of grant and purchase of items was basically that of the President of the College. The FIR has been lodged after inquiry where the President did not appear. The petitioner therein was a lady. Therefore, the interim bail granted on 29.9.2008, was confirmed on 15.12.2008. The FIR in the case has been registered on 21.4.2008, however, the petitioner till date has not joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the break-up of the comparative statement of quotations of the computers, which it is stated to have been done. However, this is a matter which is to be gone into by the investigating authorities. In the FIR the configuration of the computers supplied by the petitioner is mentioned and it was observed that in the year 2006 the cost of the computer was not more than Rs.25,000/- on the basis of the configuration which was supplied by M/s Arya Bhatt Computers. As such, the cost of 12 computers comes to Rs.3 Lacs approximately. The actual value could be calculated on contacting DIO or Hartron, Ambala. It was observed that for any sort of books or gymnasium equipments which were purchased for the College out of MPLAD grant, only the cheques were released in the name of the firms. Out of the grant of Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 [5] Rs.12 Lacs, there has been an embezzlement of Rs.9 Lacs which was proved. Besides, there are other irregularities which are on record i.e. Rs.2.5 Lacs advance payment was given to Shri Bhardwaj (petitioner) but after some time the amount was again deposited in the M.C. Account with the College. In the case of Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that the High Court is required to exercise its discretion upon examination of the facts and circumstances and to grant anticipatory bail “if it thinks fit”. The aforesaid expression had been explained by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. It was observed that the said expression which occurs in Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. is in relation to the power of the High Court or the Court of Session, is conspicuously absent in Section 437(1). Their Lordships, it was observed, saw no valid reason for rewriting Section 438 Cr.P.C. with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it. Accordingly, their Lordships were unable to endorse the view of the High Court that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal. In the present case, there is material before the Court for refusal of the grant to pre-arrest bail as the petitioner is to join investigation for the purpose of ascertaining the material that he supplied and to who are the Cr. Misc. No.M-11079 of 2010 [6] persons who had made the payment for the same. Besides, also to elicit other useful information and material which may help the prosecution. The exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra in character. In the circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and will not prejudice the rights of either of the parties. August 18, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*