IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-8441 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: March 18, 2011 Kulwinder Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr.D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner .. RAJAN GUPTA, J.: (Oral) This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under sections 420,467,468,471,409 IPC vide FIR No.109 dated 17.8.2010 at police station City Batala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been included at a later stage without any evidence. He submits that name of the petitioner has been dragged in at the instance of Harjwant Singh, Executive Treasury Officer. According to learned counsel, petitioner is thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. FIR was lodged on the statement of one Harjwant Singh, Executive Treasury Officer who stated that on 16.8.2010 a bill for final payment of GPF amounting to Rs.15,46,854/- in respect of Jagtar Singh, retired SS Master, Government High School, Dharmkot Banga had been Crl.Misc.No.M-8441 of 2011 - 2 - sent by dealing hand for signatures of the Treasury Officer. On arousing suspicion, he called Partap Singh, head of Government High School, Dharamkot Banga to treasury office for confirmation. The head of said school informed that the bill was not sent under his signatures and that no employee named as Jagtar Singh, SS Master had retired from his school on 31.7.2010 nor any person with such a name was working. An investigation ensued. Various schools were checked for detecting similar frauds, if any. Huge amounts were found to have been withdrawn illegally. The investigating agency recorded statement of one Jaswinder Kaur who stated that Kulwinder Singh (petitioner herein) was responsible for fraudulent withdrawals. The total withdrawal is stated to be to the tune of Rs.3,92,82,589/-. In view of enormity of crime and the modus operandi thereof, I am of the considered view that no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. On the other hand, investigating agency may require custodial interrogation of the petitioner for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. March 18, 2011 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 2