Jeet Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Kuldip Singh, Judge

This is an application, u/s 438 Cr.P.C., for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 306/11 dated 22.12.2011, registered at Police Station, Baddi, District Solan, u/s 409 IPC.

It has been stated in the application that petitioner is working as Senior Clerk in HPSEB Sub Division, Baddi. The duties assigned to petitioner are to take metre reading and distribute the bills to the consumers. The H.P.S.E.B. has established its collection centre at Baddi where the consumers deposit the bill amount reflected in the bill. Sohan Lal presently lodged in police custody was working as Cashier with Baddi Sub Division of HPSEB. Sohan Lal was assigned the duty to collect cash from consumers and to deposit the same in the bank. The other employees used to assist Sohan Lal due to rush of work, but cash was always handled by Sohan Lal.

On 22.12.2011, a case has been registered against Sohan Lal and petitioner u/s 409 IPC. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in the said case and, therefore, he has filed the bail application. The petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the case. There is no direct or indirect evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The detention of the petitioner would not advance the cause of justice.

The petitioner is ready to join the investigation. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this court. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail.

The status report has been filed and the bail application has been opposed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of written complaint dated 22.12.2011 of Assistant Engineer, Sub Division, Baddi, which was received in the police station. It has been stated in the complaint that several complaints have been received against Jeet Ram working as Senior Clerk that he received the amounts of energy bills and issued proper receipts, but not deposited the amounts with the office. The inquiry revealed that no entry in consumer cash register exists as per receipts issued by the official on bill formats. The official is absconding from duty since 19.10.2011. On this, the case has been registered. It has come during investigation that petitioner has misappropriated Rs. 80,084/-. The petitioner has not returned this amount nor stubs (counter-foils) have been produced. It has been stated that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in order to find out the truth as to since when the petitioner is indulging in the illegal act. In case, the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to influence the witnesses. The prayer has been made for rejection of the bail application.

Heard and perused the police file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of offence. Sohan Lal cashier is answerable to the cash receipts. The petitioner is a senior clerk and nothing to do with the receipt of cash. It has been submitted that Sohan Lal has already been arrested in the case. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has been contradicted by the learned Additional Advocate General on instructions received from the police official instructing her in the court. She has stated that Sohan Lal has been arrested in FIR No. 305/11 in another case where till now the amount involved is around Rs. 40,000/-. The present case has arisen out of FIR No. 306/11 where the amount involved is Rs. 80,084/-. It has been submitted that petitioner used to collect the bills amounts from the consumers. He did not deposit the amount so collected in the office nor he deposited the counter-foils in the office. It has been submitted that these recoveries are to be made from the petitioner. He is not cooperating in the investigation.

I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent. The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 306/11 and Sohan Lal is an accused in FIR No. 305/11 registered at police station, Baddi. Sohan Lal has been arrested in FIR No. 305/11. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take the benefit of arrest of Sohan Lal in the present case. The investigating agency is pressing for custodial interrogation of the petitioner to find out the truth and for effecting recoveries from him also. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to bail at this stage. Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion over the merits of the case. The application stands disposed of.