Crl. Misc. No. M-19128 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19128 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.8.2010 Rajinder Bhateja ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Pradeep Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Ms. Manisha Jain, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for HDFC Bank. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police Station City Kharar, District SAS Nagar, vide FIR No.13 dated 28th April, 2010, on the ground that no offence is made out against the petitioner as at best petitioner can be held guilty of temporary embezzlement only. Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are very serious. According to him, he fraudulently withdrew Rs.50.00 lacs from the account of one Amit Mehandiratta. The petitioner also withdrew another amount of Rs.35.00 lacs from the account of one Ravinder Chimney. He submits that the amount of Rs.35.00 lacs is yet Crl. Misc. No. M-19128 of 2010 2 to be recovered. Mr. Bhatia has put in appearance on behalf of the bank. He submits that another FIR has been lodged by the bank against the petitioner regarding a similar fraud. He further submits that in view of the fact that embezzlement of public money is involved in the case, some of which is yet to be recovered, the petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that allegations against the petitioner are serious. He is alleged to have withdrawn amount of Rs.50.00 lacs and Rs.35.00 lacs from the account of two account holders of the bank. According to the investigating agency, Rs.35.00 lacs are yet to be recovered from the petitioner. In view of the fact that petitioner is an employee of the bank and he is alleged to have embezzled the money of the depositors, in my considered view, he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. In fact, his custodial interrogation may be necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 16.8.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No