IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No. 812 of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Lal Chandram Verma …. Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 223 of 2010 dated 16.10.2010 registered at Police Station, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, under Sections 403, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B IPC. 2. It has been stated in the application that during the course of banking business at Punjab National Bank, Jogindernagar some irregularities and misappropriation was found and one bank employee Pramod Kumar was found responsible for the irregularities and misappropriation by the bank authority, a case was registered and he was arrested. In the departmental inquiry, Pramod Kumar was found guilty and recovery has also been effected from him. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?yes 2 3. The petitioner has come to know that during investigation Pramod Kumar has implicated the petitioner and many other employees in order to save himself. It has been alleged that 15 persons have already been granted pre-arrest bail in the case. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds, if released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The bail application has been opposed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the basis of status report. It has been stated that FIR has been registered on the basis of letter dated 14.10.2010 of Superintendent of Police, District Mandi addressed to Station House Officer, Jogindernagar enclosing letter dated 9.9.2010 of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Mandi addressed to Superintendent of Police, State CID, Kasumpti, Shimla. It has been alleged that Pramod Kumar has dishonestly misappropriated a sum of `.2,71,504/-. The amount of `.2,71,504/- which was misappropriated by Pramod Kumar was recovered by reversing the wrongful credit of ` 60,300/- from the account of Sameer and the remaining amount was paid by Pramod Kumar. A prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard both sides and have also gone through the record. It has come in the investigation that Pramod Kumar had been diverting the pension head amounts in the account of his nephew Sameer and one Dinesh Sood. Sameer Kumar was arrested on 18.9.2011 and was released on bail on 19.9.2011 by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Joginder Nagar. As per audit report and other 3 material, the mis-appropriation of the amount continued from 2006 to 2010 in which 16 employees/officers of the bank are involved for giving benefit to Pramod Kumar and Sameer Kumar. The petitioner is one of such officer. As per audit report, on 23.12.2009 the petitioner verified entry of `.10,000/- which was wrongly created by Pramod Kumar. The involvement of Dinesh Kumar has not been established till now in the commission of offence. Thus, in entirety of facts, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. In these circumstances, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in FIR No. 223 of 2010 dated 16.10.2010 registered at Police Station, Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, under Sections 403, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B IPC, the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any in any manner. 7. 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. Copy dasti. October 12, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.