IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.622 & 676 of 2008 Decided on: July 07, 2008. 1. Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 2008: Asho Ram …Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. ….Respondent. 2. Cr.MP(M) No.676 of 2008: Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioners: Mr Ramesh Sharma, Advocate in Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 2008 and Mr.Anup Chitkara, Advocate in Cr.MP(M) No.676 of 2008 . For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This order shall dispose of Cr.M.P.(M) No.622 of 2008 and Cr.M.P.(M) No.676 of 2008 both filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and arising out of F.I.R. No.90 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba on 11.9.2007 under Sections 409, 420, 34 IPC. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… 2. The petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 208 has stated that he was working in Sub Treasury and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 15.6.2007. Prior to him one Rajesh Kumar was working as Senior Assistant in Sub Treasury Tissa. Arvind Mohan Sharma, District Treasury Officer, Chamba reported the matter to the police that on 30.8.2007 when business and transaction of Sub Treasury Tissa was to be transferred to Punjab National Bank Tissa then he found shortfall of Rs.41 lacs in the record which is the result of forged and fake payments. Out of Rs.41 lacs an amount of Rs.3 lacs was attributed to be misused by petitioner in Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 2008. On this, F.I.R. was registered. The petitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the case. The investigation in the case is complete and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 7.4.2008 and since then he is in custody. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner earlier filed Cr.MP(M) No.505 of 2008 which was dismissed as not pressed on 30.5.2008 by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3. In Cr.MP(M) No.676 of 2008, it has been submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 7.4.2008 and since then he is in custody. The allegations against the petitioner are that he and two other accused have allegedly forged documents and embezzled an amount of Rs.41 lacs. It has been submitted that investigation in the case is complete and no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner continuously for indefinite period. The trial of the case will …3… take some time. The alleged embezzled amount is big amount and the police could not recover the said amount though the petitioner is in custody for the last about three months. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds. The petitioner earlier filed bail application which was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Chamba on 12.5.2008. The petitioner also filed Cr.MP(M) No.509 of 2008 in this Court which was dismissed as not pressed on 30.5.2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The status report has been filed and placed on the file of Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 2008. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that huge public money amounting to Rs.41 lacs has been siphoned out by the petitioners along with another accused. The challan has been presented in the Court on 5.7.2008. The petitioners have simply denied their involvement in the case but the fact remains that the petitioners were the concerned persons who handled the amount which was ultimately embezzled. The prosecution took several documents in possession and the opinion of the handwriting expert was called vide letter dated 20.5.2008, some clarification was sought by the handwriting expert, thereupon vide letter dated 7.6.2008, again the opinion of the handwriting expert was called but opinion of the handwriting expert is still awaited. He has submitted that the petitioners have committed serious offence. They were the trustees of the public money and they in breach of trust embezzled Rs.41 lacs. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that in case …4… the petitioners are released on bail, they are likely to influence the prosecution witnesses. 5. Heard and perused the record. There are serious allegations of embezzlement of Rs.41 lacs of public money. It has come on record that the petitioners were working in the concerned office at the relevant time. The prosecution has alleged embezzlement of Rs.41 lacs by the petitioners and this accusation has been denied by the petitioners. The handwriting expert is yet to give his opinion on the questioned documents and such opinion is likely to be of vital importance. In these circumstances, at this stage, no case is made out by the petitioners for grant of bail to them. Hence, both the applications being Cr.MP(M) No.622 of 2008 and Cr.MP(M) No.676 of 2008 are dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 07, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)