IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.560 of 2008 Decided on: June 16, 2008. Sunil Jain …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. For the complainant: Mr Ashutosh Burathoki with Mr.Himmat Singh Shergill, Advocates. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.65 dated 29.5.2008, registered at Police Station, Barotiwala, District Solan, under Sections 408, 420 I.P.C. The status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered on the written complaint of Jiwan Parkash Aggarwal, Managing Director, AAR AAR Castings, Jharmajri, Tehsil Nalagarh. The prosecution case, in brief, is that petitioner had worked as Marketing Agent of AAR AAR Castings since 1.2.2008 to 30.4.2008 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… and had collected lacs of rupees for supplying iron bars to the purchasers but he never accounted that money so collected from the purchasers to AAR AAR Castings. He cheated several persons and embezzled Rs.25 lacs so collected from them. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has not been denied that the petitioner was collecting orders for the company which deals in iron bars. It has been submitted that the petitioner was working satisfactorily since 1.2.2008 but in the meantime the financial condition of the company deteriorated. The company was not in a position to pay even the electricity bills. The petitioner was asked to arrange financial help from the banks. The Managing Director of the company was aware that father of the petitioner is working as Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tripri, District Patiala Punjab. The petitioner was asked to arrange funds from the bank where father of the petitioner is working. The petitioner could not arrange funds, therefore, false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner has not taken any money from the purchasers for supplying iron bars or any other material and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has cheated several purchasers for supplying iron bars to them by the company. It has come in investigation that the petitioner in this way has …3… embezzled about Rs.25 lacs of the company and now there is every likelihood that the petitioner will abscond from the country. In the status report, specific instances of the amounts, received on behalf of the AAR AAR Castings from various intending purchasers, have been mentioned. It has been submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation but he is not disclosing anything where he has kept the embezzled amount. The embezzled amount, Form-C, Form-F and other documents are to be recovered from the petitioner and he is not cooperating in the investigation. The petitioner has not shown any proof of depositing the amount in the account of AAR AAR Castings which he has taken from various intending purchasers collected on behalf of the company. 5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. The prosecution has given specific instances of various amounts allegedly taken by the petitioner from many persons on behalf of AAR AAR Castings for supplying iron bars to such persons. It has been admitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had been working as Marketing Agent of the AAR AAR Castings since 1.2.2008. The defence of the petitioner that since he could not arrange financial help to AAR AAR Castings, therefore, he has been falsely implicated does not appear to be well founded at this stage. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances and huge amount involved in the case, the petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of bail under Sections 438 Cr.PC. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. …4… 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. June 16, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)