IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-7189 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 19, 2010 Varpaul Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.328 dated 16.12.2009 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC read with Section 65 of the Information & Technology Act, 2000 registered with Police Station, Sadar, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the Crl. Misc. No. M-7189 of 2010 [2] petitioner contends that the petitioner was working in supervisory capacity and had nothing to do with cash collected. It was the Cashier’s job and therefore, the petitioner could not have been implicated. It has further been argued that the petitioner had made a demand against the complainant, M/s Makkar Motor Private Limited, Jalandhar for raising salary. It is in counter blast to the said demand that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further states that all the records have been surrendered by the petitioner and he is not required for further investigation. It has been contended that the Managing Director of the Company wanted the petitioner to sign certain claim/ insurance papers to enable the Company to get a claim against the damage to his property. The petitioner did not sign the documents and hence has been implicated in the case. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel. As per the FIR, petitioner was Crl. Misc. No. M-7189 of 2010 [3] working in the capacity of General Manager of M/s Makkar Motor Private Limited. In furtherance of the common intention of the accused, fictitious bills and entries were created. Important data was deleted from the computers. Related documents were taken away by way of committing the offence of theft. Spare parts had been sold/ embezzled. Substantial amount has been pocketed by the accused mentioned in the FIR. The manner in which the offence has been committed, has been given in detail in the FIR which indicates that allegedly the petitioner, under whose supervision the work was being done in the workshop, indulged in preparing false bills. Allegation is also to the effect that he misused the confidence reposed in him by way of giving him access to the main frame. The password entrusted for a particular purpose was used to change the data in the computer system. Allegation is also to the effect that while more money was charged, the defects in the vehicles were not rectified. Bills for the work done were deleted from the computer main frame. Crl. Misc. No. M-7189 of 2010 [4] Details of the manner in which the offence has been committed, is not required to be given while dealing with this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Suffice it to say that unravelling the manner in which the crime allegedly has been committed, would require custodial interrogation. Allegation is of removal of record as also deletion of material from the computer main frame. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioner has taken away material record which is required to be recovered. Without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, the investigating agency would not be in a position to come to a logical conclusion. I have considered the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner in the context of arguments addressed by the learned counsel. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had been working as General Manager. In such circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner had nothing to do with the cash or supervision of Crl. Misc. No. M-7189 of 2010 [5] repair of vehicles and preparation of bills. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that petitioner has been falsely implicated because he had raised a demand for raising salary and because he had refused to sign the claim/ insurance papers to enable the Managing Director to get a claim, is concerned, surely the investigating agency would look into that aspect also. Considering the manner in which the offence has been committed, I am of the view that true facts can be extracted only through custodial interrogation. In view of the above, no ground for bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 19, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?