HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM No.M-1827 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.05.2011 **** Balwant Rai . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Sunny Saggar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. MC Berry, Addl. AG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.154 dated 04.12.2010 under Sections 409/420/120-B IPC registered at PS Division No.2, Ludhiana. (2). The above-stated FIR has been registered on the complaint made by the Branch Manager of the Punjab National Bank at Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, inter alia, alleging that the present petitioner who is a Bank employee, in connivance and conspiracy with his relatives and friends, has duped the Bank/its customers to the tune of over Rs.24 lacs in Foreign Exchange and other transactions. It is alleged that as per the Bank regulations, the petitioner could prepare credit/debit vouchers manually and enter the transactions CRM No.M-1827 of 2011.doc - 2 - in the computer system of the Bank and all such transactions were verified/posted by another person so as to complete the process of transaction. However, it transpires from the scrutiny of the record that the petitioner entered 107 Foreign Exchange transactions in the computer system using his user ID and cleared 89 such transactions. The petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated over an amount of Rs.24 lacs from the Bank/its customers by exerting his influence as a union activist. (3). During the course of hearing, learned State counsel has handed over a list supplied by the Punjab National Bank, International Banking Branch, Industrial Area, Ludhiana to the police authorities giving details of the misappropriated amounts of Rs.22 lacs along with details of the account numbers and the different branches of the Bank. (4). The influence of the petitioner as a union activist is also apparent from the fact that one victim who has been duped by him, is widow of a Bank employee and certain amounts have been withdrawn by the petitioner from her account also. But she has given an affidavit and has been brought by him in Court to suggest that her initial complaint was a misunderstanding and in fact there were some loan transactions between both of them on account of the close family relations. CRM No.M-1827 of 2011.doc - 3 - (5). In my considered view, in order to reach at a logical conclusion, the Investigating Officer needs to have a free hand including subjecting the petitioner and his associates to custodial interrogation. (6). No case to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner is made out. (7). Dismissed. 25.05.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge