Crl. Misc. -M No. 26108 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 26108 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 Vijay Sharma ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. I.S. Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Pardeep Solath, Advocate for the complainant. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.254 dated 5.8.2011 under Sections 420/381 IPC registered at Police Station Baldev Nagar, District Ambala. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that the complainant had a warehouse at Shivam Rice Mill, Ambala City for Ericsson BSNL project related to installation and upgrading of mobile tower. The petitioner was appointed as Logistic lead. He was to supervise incoming and outgoing movements of the material in the warehouse. It is only on the instructions of the petitioner that the equipments were to be removed from the warehouse. It is further alleged that the petitioner, Amit Kumar and Arbind Kumar conspired with each other and misappropriated material worth ` 25 lacs. Thereafter, the petitioner left service and joined HUAWEI Telecommunication India Co. Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stock of the company had regularly been audited and audit report was sent to the head office. There was no misappropriation of funds or shortage of stock. After the petitioner had left the service, the petitioner cannot be made liable. Offence under Section 381 IPC is not made out against the petitioner as he was not the employee of the complainant firm. Crl. Misc. -M No. 26108 of 2011 -2- On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that co-accused Amit Kumar had suffered a disclosure statement that he along with the petitioner had removed the stocks from the warehouse which were sold and part money was deposited in the account of the petitioner as well. He had referred to deposit of ` 15,000/- in the account of the petitioner on 7.9.2010. In addition to this, it was pointed out that the petitioner had purchased Maruti Swift car in December 2010 by paying ` 4 lacs in cash for which there is no explanation available. Learned counsel for the petitioner presently does not have any explanation for deposit of ` 4 lacs in cash and the source thereof. Copy of the bank account for the months of August and September 2010 produced by the petitioner on record shows cash deposits of ` 49,000/- on 9.8.2010 and ` 40,000/- on 30.8.2010 besides ` 15,000/- on 7.9.2010 as disclosed by Amit Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ` 89,000/- were given to him by the father of the petitioner which were deposited in cash, however, he is not aware of the fact as to what father of the petitioner is doing. Deposit of ` 15,000/- on 7.9.2010 is sought to be explained as a loan taken by Arbind Kumar co-accused which was returned by him. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the cash deposits of ` 89,000/- in August 2010 in the account of the petitioner and also ` 4 lacs in cash deposited with Karnal Motors Private Limited in December 2010 for purchase of a car for which there is no apparent explanation, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 13.10.2011 Judge Meenu