Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 30, 2009 Varun Kanojia .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Varun Kanojia has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No.18 dated 14.02.2008, under Sections 379, 420, 465, 467, 471, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Division No.1, Jalandhar. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner was employee of the complainant. The petitioner left the job of the complainant on 20.05.2007. On checking bank account statement on 23.06.2007, the complainant found that two cheques bearing No.450405 and No.450410 both dated 09.06.2007 for Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-stood debited in the complainant's account on 11.06.2007. The said cheques were in the Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 2 name of Chawla Poly Products, but the complainant had never issued the said cheques, nor the complainant had any dealing with the said company. On checking, it was found that a complete cheque-book containing cheque nos. from 450401 to 450500 was missing. The complainant primarily suspected the petitioner to have stolen the aforesaid cheque-book and used the two cheques out of it for withdrawing Rs.3,50,000/- because the petitioner had been conducting bank dealings of the complainant during his employment. The complainant also expressed suspicion on two other persons namely Pankaj Mehendru, who had also since left the complainant's organization, and Jatinder Chawla, who was still in employment with the complainant's company. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been named only on the basis of suspicion. However, in a case of theft of cheque-book, the complainant could name anybody only on the basis of suspicion because the complainant had not seen anybody committing theft of the cheque-book or withdrawing the amount by using two cheques out of it. Moreover, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satpal Singh, states that as per letter given by the Chief Manager of the Bank, the aforesaid missing cheque-book had been given to the petitioner on behalf of the complainant. It is also stated by learned State counsel that the amount of aforesaid cheques was not credited to the account of Chawla Poly Products and rather the cheques were encashed as bearer cheques. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case for releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits. Before parting with the order, it has to be observed with concern that Pankaj Mehendru and Jatinder Chawla were also named as suspects in the FIR, but learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Crl. Misc. No. M-18903 of 2009 3 Satpal Singh, states that these two suspects have not been interrogated during investigation of the FIR. Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar shall look into this aspect of the matter and shall take appropriate disciplinary action against the defaulting official for not joining or interrogating the aforesaid two suspects in the aforesaid FIR. A copy of the order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar for necessary action. July 30, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE