Crl.M.No.M-16840 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No.M-16840 of 2009
Date of Decision: 30.7.2009
Narinder Kumar Gupta
....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.N.S.Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab.
Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in case
registered vide FIR No.95 dated 6.5.2009 under Sections
420/409/467/468/471 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.
The FIR has been registered at the instance of Rajinder Singh
Pathania, General Manager of Transcorp International Limited in which he
has alleged that the Company is doing business of money changing having
its Branch office at 238, Opposite ESI Hospital, Bharat Nagar Chowk,
Ludhiana which was looked after by the petitioner as Branch Manager. It is
further alleged that the petitioner had cheated Company for a sum of
Rs.26.37 lacs by sale of Company’s Travellers Cheques. He was supposed to
send the said cheques to the Corporate Office at New Delhi but instead of
sending the same, he used the said amount of Rs.26.37 lacs for his personal
Crl.M.No.M-16840 of 2009 -2-
use which was detailed in the FIR. It is alleged that in the account books of
Ludhiana Branch, cheques of the aforesaid amount were shown to have
been transferred but actually no amount was transferred to the Corporate
account.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for
anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed vide order
dated 15.6.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated. According to him, travel agent Atul Sharma
was dealing with Complainant Company for exchanging the currency of
different countries. He induced the Company that his clients who have to
travel abroad, need currency of different countries and on this pretext he had
taken the currency of the different countries through the complainant’s
company. It was also submitted that even the petitioner had moved
application to the police for registration of case against Atul Sharma.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that
the petitioner is trying to shift his burden upon Atul Sharma whose
whereabouts are not known. It is also submitted that there is a huge amount
of Rs.26.37 lacs approximately involved in this case which has been
converted by the petitioner for his personal use which is yet to be recovered,
therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that
as there are direct allegations against the petitioner of misappropriation of
Rs.26.37 lacs approximately and the said Atul Sharma has also not been
apprehended nor his whereabouts are known, the petitioner does not deserve
Crl.M.No.M-16840 of 2009 -3-
the concession of anticipatory bail. Hence the petition is hereby dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that this order shall not be deemed to be an
expression of this Court on the merits of the case.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
30.7.2009 JUDGE
Meenu