Crl.M.No.M-29084 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-29084 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:October 4, 2010 J.S.Kalson .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.52003 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-29084 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.243, dated 8.9.2009, under Sections 409, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he was posted as District Manager, Haryana Scheduled Caste Finance & Development Corporation, at Bhiwani (hereinafter to be referred as the `Corporation'). The Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs.4.98 lacs to one Gopi Ram for purchase of diesel jeep. As per policy of the Corporation, the vehicle could only be purchased from a authorized dealer. The loan was sanctioned, as per policy of the National Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation, Delhi. The amount was sent to petitioner being District Manager of the Corporation posted at Bhiwani for being disbursed Crl.M.No.M-29084 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to authorized dealer, however, petitioner-accused instead of disbursing the amount to authorized dealer, issued a cheque for Rs.4.65 lacs in favour of M/s.P.S.Marketing Associates Ambala City, which was not a authorized agency and the amount was paid by petitioner-accused to the said firm in an unauthorized manner. M/s. P.S.Marketing Associates Ambala City neither delivered the vehicle to the loanee, nor it returned the amount. Corporation also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the said firm. Petitioner-accused issued another cheque in favour of another dealer who delivered the vehicle to loanee-Gopi Ram. Hence, in view of this action on the part of the petitioner-accused, loss of more than Rs.4 lacs has been caused to the Corporation. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that he has already been suspended by the Corporation for his acts and that he has not misappropriated the amount and that rather on 2-3 other occasions as well, he had sent cheques for delivering vehicle to this agency. However, allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he promoted M/s.P.S.Marketing Associates, which is not an authorized agency and hence caused loss to the Corporation. Anticipatory bail application was also filed by co-accused, i.e. dealers of M/s.P.S.Marketing Associates, and however the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- J.S.Kalson for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4.10.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge