Deepak Makkar v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5399-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.02.2022 Deepak Makkar ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Ms. Kusum Raj, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Himmat Singh, DAG, Haryana.

******* ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.346 dated 22.11.2021 under Section 409 IPC, registered at Police Station Ram Nagar, Karnal, District Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, registered on a complaint given by Sub Divisional Officer (Operation),

-2UHBVN, Ram Nagar Sub Division, Karnal, it is stated that the petitioner was working as Lower Divisional Clerk in the aforesaid Sub Division and while working as such, he made bogus postings of stub in the consumers' accounts. When the routine audit was conducted, it came to the notice that bogus postings of Rs.20,64,040/- have been made and the audit is still going on. It is also reported that the petitioner is not permitting them to conduct audit in a proper manner. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and statements of the witnesses were recorded, in which it has come that total embezzlement is of Rs.34,67,795/- by not making entries in the CCR book, while working as Head Cashier in the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), UHBVN, Ram Nagar, Karnal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was posted out from the said Sub Division on 05.01.2021 and therefore, he could not be held liable for the same. Learned State counsel has, however, submitted that it was only the audit of one year, which has brought to notice of the Department about huge embezzlement, though the petitioner remained posted in the Department from September, 2018 onwards and his custodial interrogation is required for finding the actual embezzlement committed by him.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the serious allegations against the petitioner and as per the investigation conducted so far, which is based on documentary evidence, I find no ground to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

-3Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. In case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within a period of one week from today and moves an application for grant of regular bail, the same be decided within three days thereafter. [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] 15.02.2022 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No