Cr.Misc. M M 16058 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M M 16058 of 2010 Date of decision:3.8.2010 Jagraj Singh Petitioner vs. State of Punjab Respondent Present: Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate. Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG, Pb Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case, registered at the instance of Administrator-cum- Sub Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mansa alleging that the officials of the branch Bareh of Mansa Central Cooperative Bank indulged in embezzlement and misappropriation of the bank funds to the tune of about Rs.5.81 crores. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and that he is not named in the FIR. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A perusal of the police file indicates that a detailed inquiry had been conducted by a Committee, consisting of three senior officials, and it transpired during inquiry that the petitioner in connivance with other officials of the bank had embezzled a huge amount. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is alleged to have received a sum of Rs.15 lacs whereas Rachpal Chand received Rs.25 lacs and Vinod Kumar received Rs.13 lacs out the embezzled amount. In view of the serious allegations and the nature of internal vigilance inquiry conducted, it does not appear to be a case warranting Cr.Misc. M M 16058 of 2010 2 exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction of grant of pre-arrest bail, especially when six other accomplice of the petitioner are absconding. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the other accomplices having evaded arrest, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There has been a specific attribution against the petitioner to the effect that despite having visited the branch 16 time, he ignored the irregularities being committed. Dismissed. August 3 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE