IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 673 of 2011. Date of decision : 5.9.2011. ____________________________________________________________ Sangat Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. . …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner : Mr. Vineet Vashisht, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 214 of 2011 dated 18.8.2011, registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218 IPC. The status report has been filed and the same has been perused. 2. It has been stated in the application that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is government servant and belongs to respectable family. No purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner. The petitioner has no involvement in the commission of offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. He is ready to furnish the bail bonds in __________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 accordance with the directions of this Court. It has been stated that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala on 24.8.2011. The prayer has been made for grant of bail. 3. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that the case has been registered on the basis of letter dated 19.8.2011 of Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner Flying Squad North Zone, Palampur. The petitioner had been working as Junior Assistant in the office since September, 2009. On 22.6.2010 the staff noticed that two Treasury Receipts No. 50 and 48 were received from the State Bank of India, Palampur for `1000/- and ` 5000/- respectively, but the amount was to be deposited to the extent of ` 1,26,000/-. Ashwani Kumar, Excise and Taxation Inspector noticed that he had given ` 2,15,750/- alongwith challans to petitioner for depositing in the Government account but the treasury receipts he received were less by `1,20,000/-. Both Trs.50 and 48 were filled in the handwriting of the petitioner. However, the original challans were shown to be prepared by the Excise and Taxation Inspector in the sum of `1,26,000/- consisting of TR No. 146 for `.65,000/- and TR No. 144 for `.61,000/- dated 22.6.2010. 4. On receiving this information, the office started verification of the Treasury receipts record maintained in the office. It was found that an amount of ` 15,65,000/- was short deposited by the petitioner 3 from the period January, 2010 to June, 2010. The Government cash was short deposited only in the case where the petitioner was handed over the cash by the Excise and Taxation Inspector for deposit into the Government Treasury. The petitioner forged the Treasury receipts to mis-appropriate the Government money. 5. On cross-checking, it was found that the petitioner has mis-appropriated an amount of `.9,65,000/- under head 0045 and `.5,99,975/- under head 0040. PR Book bearing No. 0258851 to 0258900 which was being used by the petitioner for issuing cash receipts in the absence of staff members is not traceable. The petitioner had promised to deposit the abovementioned mis- appropriated amount and deposited `.6,00,000/- vide TR No. 168 dated 29.6.2010 for `.2,26,000/-, TR No. 167 dated 29.6.2010 for `.74,000/-, TR No. 87 dated 30.6.2010 for ` 50,000/-, TR No. 88 dated 30.6.2010 for ` 1,00,000/- and TR No. 10 dated 6.8.2010 for `.1,50,000/-. The amount of `.9,65,000/- is still to be explained by the petitioner which he has failed to explain. 6. It has been stated in the status report that petitioner used to tamper the challans filled in by the Excise and Taxation Inspectors and he has embezzled an amount of `15,65,000/-. He has returned ` 6,00,000/- but still an amount of ` 9,65,000/- is to be recovered from him. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 7. I have considered the submissions made on the either side and have also perused the police file. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. The investigating agency has alleged that an amount of `15,65,000/- has been embezzled by the petitioner by 4 forging the papers. Out of embezzled amount, the petitioner has deposited ` 6,00,000/- but still an amount of `.9,65,000/- has not been explained by the petitioner. 8. In view of the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, the case requires thorough interrogation of the petitioner. It is not a case where the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the application is dismissed. 9. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail application only and the same shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. September 5, 2011. (Kuldip Singh) (GR) Judge.