1 S/1 S.B. CIRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLN. 3084/2007. [JITENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE] DATED : 19.07.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the applicant. Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, P.P. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the order impugned and police investigation record. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is that he introduced Mr.Dharmendra Sharma his brother-in-law to the complainant company and on which Mr.Dharmendra Sharma was engaged by the complainant company and the petitioner has nothing to do with the Company. Further, he contended that the petitioner's wife become a member of that company and she is entitled for certain amount as commission which has not been paid to her by the complainant company and, therefore, a legal notice through counsel on behalf of wife of the petitioner was given and petitioner has nothing to do with it. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application 2 by submitting that there are allegations against petitioner and his brother-in-law as both have conspired and received the amount from the various persons. Not only they received the amount but in certain parchis the figures and words have also been changed. After going through the statement of Shiv Ram Sharma in which it is alleged that petitioner and Dharmendra Sharma both have conspired and misappropriated the funds of the Company and the misappropriate funds have been deposited in the bank in the Bank accounts of wives of petitioner and Dharmendra Sharma respectively. That amount is to be recovered from them. According to the conclusion arrived at by the police it cannot be said at this stage that petitioner is not involved in alleged commission of crime. It is stated that the petitioner is a police constable and presently has been placed under suspension and while under suspension he alleged to have indulged himself in the said activities with the co-accused Dharmendra Sharma. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it is not just and proper to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. 3 MAMTA