Crl.Misc. No.M-19842 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 18, 2011. Crl.Misc. No.M-19842 of 2011. Parvinder Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kiratpal Singh Sidhu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Adv. for the complainant. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Shri Ram Transport Finance Company, alleging that the petitioner in the capacity as Manager of the said firm has caused wrongful loss to the Company by wrongly financing the vehicles to the customers. It has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that main allegations are against the Field Officer Mr.Kohli, who was responsible for the disbursal of loans for vehicles. The loss, . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-19842 of 2011 if any, has been caused by said Mr.Kohli. It is also contended that after said Mr.Kohli, disappeared, the petitioner has been involved in the case as originally, there has been no allegation against the petitioner. The allegation for pre-arrest bail has been opposed by the counsel for the complainant as well as by the State counsel. A perusal of the documents gathered during investigation and the various files of the finance company indicate that on the basis of fake identity of the customers, vehicle loans had been disbursed to different people against fake registration certificates of the vehicles. It will be pre-mature to enter into controversy whether it was the duty of the Manager or of the Field Officer to ascertain the authenticity of the documents presented. Prima facie, there appears to be sufficient material collected by the Investigating Agency regarding the misappropriation of huge funds of the Comp;any. It is not a case where extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner seems to be necessary to determine the extent of loss and the modus operandi of the petitioner. Dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 18, 2011. rka . . . 2