Crl. Misc. No.M-35125 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-35125 of 2011. Date of decision: December 13, 2011. Rahul Jain .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG., Punjab. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Rajinder Pal Singh, Manager, Customer Service, ICICI Bank. The said case was registered on the allegations that Amit Jain, non-petitioner held an insurance policy of the Bank. Sunil Likhi and Jetender Kumar procured forged letters of change of address and misappropriated the amount of about ` 9,30,000/-. The petitioner is alleged to have collected the cheque of ` 9,27,000/- in the name of Rahul Jain, authorized collecting agent, on behalf of Amit Jain. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner merely played a puppet in the hands of Sunil Likhi and Jetender Kumar who masterminded the crime. The ..1 . Crl. Misc. No.M-35125 of 2011 petitioner handed over the said cheque to above said two persons which was deposited in the fake account of Amit Jain maintained by them. The amount was misappropriated by said two persons. During the course of investigation, it has transpired that the petitioner is also one of the beneficiaries of the amount belonging to Amit Jain as he has, through one transaction, withdrawn the amount with the help of ATM, regarding which the evidence has been collected. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, it cannot be presumed, at this stage that the petitioner neither had any intention nor he connived with other co -accused. The petitioner having played an active role and having been attributed specific overt act cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the co- accused of the petitioner namely Sunil Likhi and Jetender Kumar have been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel and gone through the orders passed in the case of Jetender Kumar and Sunil Likhi. They had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail as they had been involved in the case merely on the basis of a statement made by them in the departmental proceedings before the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company having connived with the present petitioner to cause loss to Amit Jain. As the admissibility of said admission before the complainant party is debatable, the said persons have been granted ..2 . Crl. Misc. No.M-35125 of 2011 the concession of pre-arrest bail. But so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is the main accused who has implemented the evil designs of the co-accused. The petitioner has played an active role by appearing before the Company and obtaining the cheque in the capacity as authorized signatory of Amit Jain. It is the petitioner who had deposited the cheque in the fake account. It is the petitioner only who has even withdrawn the amount as per the plans prepared by his co-accused. The case of the petitioner stands at different footing from that of Sunil Likhi and Jetender Kumar. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 13, 2011. rka ..3 .