Criminal Misc. No.M- 25983 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M- 25983 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.1.2010 Diptiman Mazumdar ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.H.S.Beniwal, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Vikram K.Chaudhri, Advocate, for the complainant. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.326 dated 22.6.2006 under Sections 420, 408, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), registered at Police Station City, Rohtak. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Jogendra Samal Criminal Misc. No.M- 25983 of 2009 (O&M) 2 was an employee of M/s Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'). Jogendra Samal was to collect the cheques from Maruti Udyog Limited, Gurgaon and ABN Amro Bank, New Delhi on behalf of the company for the goods supplied to them. All the accused hatched a conspiracy and in order to cheat the company, embezzled and misutilised crores of rupees. The amount belonging to the company was transferred by the accused in connivance with each other in a firm known as AD Pharmaceuticals. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the petitioner was at par with Sushmita Majumdar Samal, who had been allowed anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure P-2). Hence, the petitioner was also entitled to be released on bail. In fact, the petitioner was innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. There was lot of delay in presentation of challan with a view to falsely involve the petitioner in this case. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, have submitted that the offence committed by the petitioner was serious in nature. Although, the petitioner had joined investigation yet he had not fully cooperated with the Investigating Officer. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. As per the prosecution case, a fictitious account had been Criminal Misc. No.M- 25983 of 2009 (O&M) 3 opened by Jogendra Samal, who was employee of the company. The cheques were deposited in the said fictitious account and were subsequently siphoned in the account of the company known as AD Pharmaceuticals. The petitioner is admittedly a partner of the said firm. The allegations levelled against the accused are with regard to the misappropriation of Rs.1,60,39,376/- . Rs. 69,000/- were found to have been deposited in the account of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is not at par with Sushmita Majumdar as no amount was found to be deposited in her account. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. The other co- accused have been allowed regular bail. There are serious allegations of misappropriation, cheating, preparing and using forged documents against the petitioner and his co-accused. Keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE Januar 15, 2010 anita