CRM-M 26757of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM-M 26757of 2008 (O&M) Decided on Aug 18,2009. Surinder Singla and others -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.D.D.Sharma,Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G.Punjab, for the respondent/State. Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.136 dated 23.9.2008 under Sections 406,420, 465, 467,468,471,120-B IPC at Police Station, Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural). The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of one Satish Kumar Gupta in which it has been alleged that Lachhman Dass Mahant, (petitioner No.2.) Ex-President of S.G.G.Senior Secondary School Goindwal, Tehsil Raikot, misappropriated more than Rs.70 lacs, Surinder Singla (petitioner No.1), Ex-Secretary, misappropriated more than Rs.2 lacs, Ex-Member Varinder Jain (petitioner No.4) misappropriated more CRM-M 26757of 2008 (O&M) 2 than Rs.50,000/- and Ex-Member Manjit Kaur (Petitioner No.3) misappropriated more than Rs.45,000/-. It was also alleged that Lachhman Dass Mahant (petitioner No.2.) had embezzled FDRs of more than Rs.37,23,000/-. Apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Addl..Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed on 10.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as per Annexure P-1, the petitioners are the members of the Managing Committee. It is further submitted that the complainant Satish Kumar Gupta is only a Manager of the School and has no locus standi to register the present FIR which has been registered as a counter blast to FIR No. 132 dated 21.9.2008, under Sections 420, 406, 447,511,467,468,471,477-A,120-B IPC, at Police Station Raikot, District Ludhiana, against the complainant and others. It is further submitted that the petitioners are on interim bail and have already joined the investigation. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the FIR registered by the petitioners is not a counter blast to the FIR registered by the complainant vide FIR No. 132 aforesaid because the complaint was made to the police on 24.4.2008 by the complainant against the petitioners in which an enquiry was conducted and it has been found in the enquiry, which includes the records of the bank, that Lachhman Dass Mahant (petitioner No.2) prepared fake receipts of FDRs worth Rs.37,23,000/- in the name of the School, but as per the record of the bank, there is no such FDR in the name of the School. It was also enquired into as per the report of C.A that for the period from CRM-M 26757of 2008 (O&M) 3 01.4.2004 to 31.3.2005, an amount of more than Rs. Two lacs is due from Surinder Singla (petitioner No.1) and Rs.50,000/- from Varinder Jain (petitioner No.4). Learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on the basis of the complaint dated 24.4.2008, FIR was registered on 23.9.2008 which cannot be considered to be a counter blast to the FIR No.132 dated 21.9.2008. It is further submitted by him that huge amount has been embezzled by the petitioners which is yet to be recovered. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the recovery is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence the bail application is hereby dismissed. Nothing stated in this order shall be taken to be an expression of opinion on merit of the case. Aug 18,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge