Deepak Jarial v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.206 Case No. : CRM-M-34843-2025 Decided On : September 15, 2025 Deepak Jarial ....
Petitioner vs.
State of Punjab ....
Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR.
* * * Present :
Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Pandher, AAG, Punjab.
* * * SUKHVINDER KAUR , J.
:
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 142 dated 10.06.2025, under Section 316(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station Sadar Jalandhar, District Police Commissionerate Jalandhar. The brief facts, giving rise to registration of the aforesaid FIR, are that the petitioner was appointed by PSTCL Department to look after the work of Accounts and during performance of his aforesaid duty, he caused loss of Rs.7 lakhs to the Department by issuing cheques in his own name towards payment of electricity bills. Earlier, the fraud committed by him was not noticed but later, it was exposed by some officials, who were also arrayed as co-accused in the present FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has not misappropriated any amount of the Department. Rather, he was being harassed due to party faction in the Department, at the instance of some interested officials. In fact, after the death of his father, the petitioner was appointed as Sewadar on compassionate grounds and later, he was promoted to the post of LDC due to his hard work and honesty. It was also submitted that the petitioner was duly authorized to receive the payments in cash or by way of cheques either in his own name or in the account of department. However, every payment was supposed to be deposited with the PSPCL office.
Since the petitioner was not well and admitted to the hospital, so, there was delay in depositing the amount by the petitioner to the Department, but the petitioner had already deposited the total outstanding amount with the Department, thereby showing his innocence and honesty. Even then, FIR has been registered against him. Learned counsel further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and no recovery is to be effected from him. He is ready and willing to join the investigation and prayed that concession of anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner. On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel sought adjournment to verify the factum of payment of Rs.7 lakhs and also amount of Rs.
69,177/- by the petitioner, in addition to clarification with regard to deposit of total embezzled amount deposited by the petitioner uptil now. Learned State counsel has produced in Court today a letter bearing Memo No.1394, dated 11.09.2025, issued by Sr.XEN, P&M Division, PSTCL to the Dy.
Typist (Emp. ID 609510) had committed total embezzlement amounting to Rs.8,19,768/-, but the said amount had now been fully deposited in PSTCL account. Hence, the balance outstanding against him is "Nil" as on date. However, learned State counsel opposed the present bail petition and contended that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature and his custodial interrogation is required for fair and proper investigation. So, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail. Heard.
A perusal of the Status Report on record reveals that specific allegations against the petitioner are that he had caused wrongful loss of Rs.7 lakhs to PSTCL by embezzling amount of the electricity bills. Moreover, a sum of Rs.4,61,890/-, pertaining to 11 cheques was first got deposited by the petitioner in his own account and later on, it was got transferred to the account of PSTCL, whereas amount of Rs.6,70,770/-, pertaining to 14 remaining cheques was got transferred by him in his own account and not deposited with the electricity department. However, a perusal of letter produced by learned State counsel i.e.Memo No.1394, dated 11.09.2025, reveals that the total embezzled amount had now been fully deposited by petitioner in PSTCL account and the balance outstanding against the petitioner is "Nil" as on date.
The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for any purpose and nothing is to be recovered from him. No useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner is ordered
to be released on bail, on furnishing bail/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, subject to the conditions, as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS. It will be open for the Investigating Officer to call the petitioner to join investigation, if so required, by issuing a written notice in this regard. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions mentioned in Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of along with the present petition.
September 15, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.