IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1047 of 2008. Date of decision: 14.11.2008. Rajesh Kumar ………. 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. R.L. Chaudhary , Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ansul Kumar Bansal , Additional Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge. (Oral) 1. This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No.90 registered on 11.9.2007 at Police Station, Tissa under Sections 409, 420, 34 IPC. The status report dated 6.11.2008 has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner had served as Senior Assistant at Sub Treasury, Tissa, District Chamba till 15.6.2007 and on promotion to the post of Superintendent in District Treasury, Dharamshala, the petitioner was transferred on 15.6.2007. He was relieved from Sub Treasury, Tissa, he handed over the charge to Asho Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes 2 Ram, Senior Assistant. At the time of handing over the charge no defect was pointed out and petitioner reported at new place of posting at Dharamshala. On 11.9.2007 a complaint was filed at Police Station, Tissa that on 11.6.2007 and 13.6.2007 the petitioner and Tek Chand, Clerk allegedly made payments of Rs.38,00,000/- on the basis of fake bills and in these circumstances aforesaid FIR came to be registered. It has been alleged that as per the prosecution on 11.6.2007 and 13.6.2007 actual payment of Rs.4,71,614/- was made whereas on the basis of 24 forged bills Rs.38,00,000/- was withdrawn by petitioner and other co-accused, which fact came to the notice of District Treasury Officer on 30.8.2007while dealing with the cash of Sub Treasury, Tissa. At the time of handing over cash to Punjab National Bank, Tissa difference in accounts came to Rs.41,00,000/-. 3. The petitioner earlier filed bail application in this Court which was rejected on 7.7.2008. It has been submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is complete. The custody of the petitioner is not required. The learned Addl. Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that bail application of the petitioner was earlier rejected by this Court on 7.7.2008, there is no change of circumstance. It has been submitted that another complaint dated 6.6.2007 has been received in the Vigilance Department showing embezzlement of further amount of Rs.7,73,100/- and by adding this amount the total embezzlement comes to Rs.48,73,100/- . Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been added in the supplementary challan which is under investigation. On 3 these grounds submission has been made for rejection of the bail application. 4. I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. There are in all three accused in the case and none has been granted bail. The bail application of the petitioner was earlier considered and dismissed by this Court, there is no change of circumstance. In addition to this, earlier embezzled amount was Rs.41,00,000/- but now according to prosecution the embezzled amount has swelled to Rs.48,73,100/- . The petitioner was trustee of public funds. The allegations against the petitioner are serious. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for releasing him on bail at this stage. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed. 5. The observations made in this order are for disposal of this application and these shall not be treated as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge November 14, 2008 (sks)