Crl. Misc. No. M-35333 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35333 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 8.12.2010 Rattan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rimplejeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420 & 409 IPC at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, vide FIR No.169 dated 28th September, 2010. The allegations in the FIR are that the petitioner while posted as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Head Cashier at Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kosli, was entrusted a duty of collecting the cash deposited by the consumers. During the period 2007 to 2009, it was detected that the petitioner had embezzled huge amount and thus committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to various circulars annexed with the petition to contend that it was not petitioner's Crl. Misc. No. M-35333 of 2010 2 duty to collect the cash and thus, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the case is based on documentary evidence and thus custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail. She submits that sufficient material is on record which points towards guilt of the petitioner. She further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. It is evident that at the relevant time the petitioner was posted as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Head Cashier at Sub Division of Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited. He is alleged to have embezzled an amount of more than Rs.20.00 lacs which was deposited by the consumers. The allegations are serious in nature. Since public money is involved and modus operandi of the crime is to be unraveled, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary. I am, thus, of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 8.12.2010 'rajpal'