CRM-M 16581 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Oct 24,2009. Jagmohan Singh Kochhar -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal,Sr.Advocate,with Sarvshri.Mukul Aggarwal and B.B.S.Sobti,Advocates, for the petitioner Mrs.Rajni Gupta,Addl.A.G.Punjab. Mr.R.P.Goyal,Advocate,for the complainant. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in case FIR No.80 dated 05.5.2009, registered under Sections 420,467,468,471,477- A,120-B,109 of IPC, at Police Station,City Kotkapura. Interestingly, the aforesaid FIR has been registered by the petitioner as a complainant in which he is now being prosecuted as an accused. The allegations are of mis-appropriation and embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 2,85,19,099/- from Punjab & Sind Bank, Kotkapura.. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application before the Court below, which has been dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his order dated CRM-M 16581 of 2009 2 10.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has,inter-alia,contended that the alleged fraud has been committed by Surjit Singh son of Lal Singh, who was posted as Rural Development Officer in the branch of Punjab & Sind Bank, Kotkapura. The matter was brought to the notice of Zonal Manager of Faridkot Zone, who constituted a team of two officers of the bank posted with Zonal Office. They visited the branch on 13.2.2009 and prima facie found Surjit Singh, RDO, responsible for embezzlement. As such, he was placed under suspension on 21.4.2009. Thereafter, at the instance of Zonal Manager, the petitioner moved an application dated 28.4.2009 to the S.S.P,Faridkot, and on the basis of preliminary enquiry, in which only Rs.10,47,000/- was detected to have been embezzled by Surjit Singh, RDO, a case was registered. Later on, Zonal Manager, sent another team to deeply probe the bungling in the finances of the bank, who had found that said Surjit Singh had cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.2,85,19,099/-. Therefore, a supplementary report was made to the police on the basis of which the present FIR has been registered. It is also submitted that the dispute is with regard to the ZCC and KCC (loan accounts). Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of circular of the bank (Annexure P4) if the amount involved is more than Rs.1.00 crore and above but up to Rs.5.00 crore in which the staff of the bank is involved, then the authority to lodge a complaint lies with Zonal Manager and the authority with whom the matter could be lodged is C.B.I, (Anti Corruption Branch). It is submitted that in the present case, the amount of embezzlement is allegedly between 1.00 crore to 5.00 CRM-M 16581 of 2009 3 crores, the FIR could not have been lodged with the police at the instance of the present petitioner who is only the Senior Manager. It is further submitted that in view of Role Specifications of Important Branch Functionaries (Annexure-5), the role of the petitioner is supervisory and the entire responsibility is of the Sectional Incharge, who was Surjit Singh, RDO and of the Second Man in Large/ Very Large Branch. It is submitted that branch of Kotkapura was a large branch and even in the enquiry report dated 25.7.2009, the allegations against the petitioner are of irregularities. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is being made a scape goat in order to create passage for other accused to flee. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank has argued that initially, when the matter was reported to the police by the branch , the embezzlement amount was found to be Rs. 10,47,000/- but later on, on the instructions of the Zonal manager, the present FIR has been registered, when after the second enquiry an embezzlement has been found to the tune of Rs.2,85,19,099/-. It is further submitted that the matter may be handed over to the CBI. Learned counsel for the bank has further submitted that even according to document Annexure P-5, role of the petitioner is writ large having an over all control on the activities of the bank. He further submitted that even in the enquiry, it has been found that:- (i)the detail of vouchers missing during the tenure of Mr. Kochhar and Other irregularities in ZCC loan accounts have been mentioned in detail as per Annexure A (attached) with serial number 361 to 822. (ii) Total amount of fraud entries during the tenure CRM-M 16581 of 2009 4 of Mr. Kochhar comes out Rs.3,39,82,854/- (iii) No office order issued by Mr. Kochhar during his tenure for writing/checking of day book and other routine of the branch. (iv)List of unsorted/unstiched vouchers is enclosed. (Annexure B) (v) Large number of vouchers have been missing with record from daily vouchers however we have mentioned those vouchers which relates loan A/C's only. (Annexure C) (vi) Most of the daily vouchers have not been approved by Mr.Kochhar. (vii) Balances of loans (PL) have never been compared with GL by him which has led to fraud (viii)The attendance of Surjit Singh, RDO (U/S) not got been marked in the attendance register during his tenure. (ix) No leave record has been maintained by Surjit Singh, RDO (U/S) by him during his tenure. (x) Day book has never been checked by Mr. J.S.Kochhar. (xi)Maximum number of entries and amount of fraud committed in branch during his tenure”. It is further submitted that other accused, namely, Amarjit Singh Chawla, who remained posted during the period from 09.8.2001 to CRM-M 16581 of 2009 5 06.5.2004 and A.P.S.Sehgal from 06.5.2004 to 12.8.2006 had applied for bail in the Court but Sh. A.P.S.Sehgal has already been arrested and his regular bail has been dismissed and anticipatory bail application of Amarjit Singh Chawla has also been dismissed. It is further submitted that Surjit Singh, RDO, though has been released on bail in terms of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., yet no recovery could have been effected from him. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon order passed by this Court in CRM-M 45691 of 2003 titled as Mohd. Zakir Hussain Vs. State of Haryana , 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 758, to contend that custodial interrogation is more beneficial and in the interest of justice as it is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect, who is well ensconced with a favourable order of pre-arrest bail. He further submits that the petitioner is absconding from law for about four months, therefore, competence of the petitioner is to hide strengthens the belief that he may not even be available to the Investigating Agency or to the trial Court at appropriate time. He has further relied upon a decision passed in CRM-M 16029 of 2003 titled as Vinay Mahajan vs. State of Punjab, 2003 (4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 337, to contend that the Court should lean in favour of custodial interrogation in the cases where embezzlement of huge public funds are involved. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent/bank has drawn attention of this Court to the document Annexure R/2, to contend that complicity of the petitioner is writ large because he has approved the vouchers allegedly entered into by the alleged prima facie accused Surjit Singh, RDO. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping CRM-M 16581 of 2009 6 in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which huge amount of the bank has been siphoned off by various officers of the bank which runs into crores of rupees and not a single penny has been recovered so far and two persons who are similarly situated with the petitioner, namely, A.P.S.Sehgal and Amarjit Singh Chawla could not get bail from the Court, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail as it is not a case of exceptional circumstance. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed herein shall be taken to be an expression of my opinion on the merits of the case. Oct 24,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge