Cr.M.P.(M) No. 926 of 2008 14.10.2008 Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for the respondent. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 926 of 2008: This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 574 of 2007 dated 10.10.2007 registered at Police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. under Sections 420, 468, 405 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The status report has been filed by the respondent- State. Heard and perused the record. Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case by the police. He further contended that the petitioner had joined the investigation and had accounted for the money collected by him on behalf of the company. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He contended that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs. 1,63,01,000/- from various share holders and has not accounted for the same. It has come in the statement of Mr. R.S. Rana recorded by the police that he had in fact received a sum of Rs. 68 lacs from the petitioner. However, the petitioner could not explain satisfactorily about the remaining amount of Rs. 22 lacs collected by him on behalf of the company. Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the compilation prepared by him to substantiate that the money was paid to the persons mentioned in the document at the behest of Mr. R.S. Rana. The money collected and deposited by the petitioner which was paid to various persons was required to be entered in the Account Books maintained by the company. There is a set procedure for maintaining the Account Books and every penny collected is required to be credited and if any money is paid out of the company’s funds, it is to be debited. It appears that gullible persons have been defrauded and cheated by the petitioner and other functionaries of the company. The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the modus operandi of the petitioner and co-accused was to allure the persons by offering them appointments in the company or to guarantee that their amount will multiply many folds and for that purpose they used to issue share certificates. The shares are required to be notified with the Registrar of the Companies. The petitioner ought to have deposited the amount received by him in the company’s account instead of paying the money to the persons mentioned in the compilation. Consequently, there is no merit in this application and the same is rejected. The observations made in this order are for the disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as an expression/opinion on the merits of the case. Copy ‘Dasti’ on usual terms. (Rajiv Sharma), J. October 14, 2008. (cr)