Parshotam Lal vs State of Haryana

Amar Dutt, J.

This petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 1973 has been filed by Parshotam Lal, Conductor, praying that he should be admitted to anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 143 dated 5.4.1999 Police Station, Sector 5, Panchkula registered under Section 409 I.P.C.

The case against the petitioner is that he has been working as a Cashier in the Sub Depot of Haryana Roadways at Panchkula for the last five years. On 5.2.1999 when inspection of the cash book was carried out some serious irregularities were detected and it was found that the same had been written upto 2.3.1997 and an amount of Rs. 36,306/ which had been received from the Chandigarh Depot on 4.2.1999 had not been accounted for. Apart from this, Haryana Passenger Tax to the extent of Rs. 25,773/ had not been deposited for the period extending from 2.2.1999 to 5.2.1999. Paid Vouchers of Rs. 23,400/ were also not traceable. A detailed departmental enquiry was conducted and ultimately there was found to be shortfall of Rs. 4,55,992/ which had not been accounted for in the cash book. The petitioner had thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 1,39,243/ but since despite repeated requests an amount of Rs. 3,16,649/ was not accounted for, a written complaint was sent by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered.

Faced with this situation, the petitioner had moved an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who taking into consideration the fact that a huge amount of public money involved in the case was yet to be recovered has rejected the same. Hence, the present petition.

I have heard Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surinder Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.

On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that since the petitioner was not a regular cashier and was only a conductor performing temporary duty of a cashier, therefore, he was unaware of nuances of accountancy and his failure to maintain proper accounts should not be held against him. It is further urged that the petitioner had indicated before his employer that this was not a case of embezzlement and was one of reconciliation of accounts. It has, therefore, been contended that this was a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed anticipatory bail and given time to explain the discrepancies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also dilated upon the submissions put forth in para No. 10 of the petition and had submitted that the petitioner was working at a very low level and the fact that the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of two months indicates that the authorities have prepared false records to shelter some influential officials who had embezzled the money. She further asserted that since the records are already in possession of the department, therefore, there was no need for detention of the petitioner in view of the observations contained in Jagjit Kaur v. State of Haryana, 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 538 and Puran Chand Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1980 PLR 694, and the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail.

Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, I am of the view that while there is no dispute that in Jagjit Kaur and Puran Chand Gupta''s cases (supra) the petitioners were accused of having committed offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B IPC and under sections 420, 468/484/34 IPC respectively and bail had been granted to them, yet on the basis of these judgments, it cannot as a matter of law be held that in all cases registered under the aforesaid sections bail was invariably to be granted. These judgments are, therefore, of no assistance to the petitioner for the disposal of this case.

The law regarding grant of anticipatory bail was settled by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SSC 1632 and therein it was indicated in para 31 as under :

"In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a declaration for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made."

It was also observed that :

"It cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond."

While considering the ratio of this judgment in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1985(2) RCR(Crl.) 122 : AIR 1985 SC 969 the Apex Court observed as under :

"Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed herein are the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant''s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State", are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail." A caution was voiced that in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it."

In the present case, it is not disputed that though the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor but for the last four years he had been working as a Cashier in the Panchkula Sub Depot of Haryana Roadways and during this period he was required to maintain the accounts as well as to properly account for all the money which had passed through his hands. On 5.2.1990 (5.2.1999 ?) some irregularities are alleged to have been detected and he was asked to explain the discrepancies. The petitioner assured the office that he would do so but unfortunately he was admitted to Government Medical College, Sector 32, Chandigarh where he remained till 11.5.1999. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not been able to get the accounts reconciled. Even according to his learned counsel, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,39,243/ towards the shortfall and had assured to get the discrepancies removed. In the Court, it had been submitted by Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain that there was enough money available with the Government in the G.P. Fund and other accounts of the petitioner which would cover any shortfall that ultimately might be found against her client and, therefore, it was a fit case in which he should be granted anticipatory bail. This position has been disputed before me on behalf of the State and it is submitted that the money which is lying with the Government is not sufficient to cover the amount which has been embezzled by the petitioner. Be that as it may, whether or not the petitioner is able to make good the deficiency which is ultimately found, would be a secondary issue and cannot be taken into consideration by this Court while disposing of the application for anticipatory bail. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that the authorities have prepared false records to shelter some influential officers who had embezzled the money. In view of this assertion, it is apparent that the petitioner knows more about the persons who might have utilised the amount of Rs. 3,16,649/ which still remains unaccounted for. As this has not been brought out in the investigation uptil now, I feel to find out the truth the investigating agency may require the custody of the petitioner during investigation so as to enable them to trace out where and with whom that portion of the amount of Rs. 3,16,649/ had gone/is lying.

In these circumstances, it is not possible for the Court to infer that the petitioner is named as an accused in the F.I.R. registered against him on account of some personal vendetta and not with a view to determine the true circumstances in which the embezzlement had taken place. As a matter of fact, the petitioner by depositing an amount of Rs. 1,39,243/ without any demur had indicated his acceptance of the responsibility for atleast a part of the missing amount and the fact that during the course of arguments it has strenuously been urged that the petitioner would be able to produce documents on the basis of which accounts could be reconciled too does not in any way help me to absolve him of his responsibility to maintain the accounts and handle the cash properly. Furthermore, in view of the stand of the petitioner that he has been roped in to cover some influential persons, I feel that to determine the true state of affairs, the petitioner must be required to join the investigation and the investigating agency should get an opportunity to interrogate him while in custody because of the disquietening implications of arming the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail which may impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy which existed might have behind the embezzlement. In State Rep. by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma, JT 1997(7) SC 651, the Apex Court has observed to the following effect :

"In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a prearrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

To the same effect is the view expressed by the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu and another, JT 1997(8) SC 382.

For the reasons recorded above, I am of the considered view that the case in hand is not one in which the order of prearrest bail can be passed as the same would stand in the way of effective interrogation and thereby impede the progress of the investigation.

Bail petition is dismissed.