Crl. Misc. No. M-9110 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9110 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Sunil Likhi …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Ravinderpal Singh, Manager Customer Service of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, alleging that the main accused Rahul Jain has embezzled approximately ` 9.30 lacs. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is an ex-employee of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company who has facilitated the disbursement of the said amount to Rahul Jain on surrendering the policy in the name of Amit Jain. Jatinder Kumar, Crl. Misc. No. M-9110 of 2011 [2] co-accused of the petitioner, similarly circumstanced, has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. A perusal of the police file indicates that the only evidence against the petitioner, gathered by the investigating agency, is a statement made by petitioner in departmental proceedings before the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company having connived with the main accused Rahul Jain to cause loss to Amit Jain. The admissibility of that admission before the complainant Bank would be a debatable using during the course of trial. The petitioner has joined investigation. Taking into consideration the fact that Jatinder Kumar, co- accused of the petitioner, has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner can be granted the same relief as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. Petition is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions:- i) the petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police; ii) he will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner; iii) the petitioner will not India without the permission of the Court; and that iv) the petitioner will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of. Crl. Misc. No. M-9110 of 2011 [3] It is made clear that any observation made in this order will not prejudice the civil rights of the complainant party to recover any financial loss from the petitioner or any other person by establishing their civil liability. November 22, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDG