← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/20073/2017dismissed

Akashdeep Sandal v. State Of Punjab

2017-10-06Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

CRM-M-20073-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20073-2017 Date of decision: 06.10.2017 Akashdeep Sandal ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ..... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1.

Through the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner-Akashdeep Sandal, in case FIR No. 24 dated 22.02.2017 registered under Sections 406, 408 and 420 IPC at Police Station City Nawanshahar, District SBS Nagar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the real culprit for usurping the disputed amount is one Deepak Gill, who was the Manager of the branch at Nawanshahar. He used to deposit all the money with the complainant-Company, after collecting the same from the petitioner. The petitioner did not usurp even a single penny. He has already joined the investigation in terms of order dated 24.07.2017 of this Court and nothing has to be recovered from him. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. 3.

On the other hand learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that though the petitioner has joined the investigation, but did not repay even a single penny against the Rishu Kataria 2017.10.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-20073-2017 -2embezzled/usurped amount of ` 5,24,628/- collected by him from the shops being a Daily Sales Executive (DSE) of the complainant-company. She also contends that the petitioner by way of an affidavit has admitted his liability to the aforesaid extent, but now has become dishonest after getting the relief of anticipatory bail.

4.

Considering the overall circumstances and the fact that the petitioner, despite executing an affidavit admitting his liability to the extent of ` 5,24,628/- collected by him as DSE of the complainant-company, did not repay even a single penny, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. October 06, 2017 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Rishu Kataria 2017.10.07 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document