JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. This order shall dispose of petitioner’s application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in Case FIR No. 448/2001 registered at PS Tilak Marg, New Delhi under Sections 408/409/ 419/420/467/471 /477-A read with Section 120-B of the IPC. It may be mentioned here itself that the petitioner had earlier also moved an application for anticipatory bail which was declined by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A. Khan vide orders dated 14.11.2002. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that this application has been moved as the petitioner has found some more material to persuade the Court to order her enlargement on bail before her arrest.
2. The petitioner was working with United States Educational Foundation in India (USEFI) which came into existence through a treaty between India and United States of America for academic exchanges between the two countries. The Body is governed by a Board of Directors on which five Indians have been appointed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development and five have been appointed by United States Ambassador in India. The day-to-day operations are controlled by the Executive Director. The petitioner and her co-accused Arindam Das were looking after the Fiscal Section of the aforesaid Body which inter alia included management of systems, accounts, audit, disbursement of expenses, receipts, payments to the grantees and staff etc. They allegedly misappropriated a sum of about Rs. 58 lacs by claiming payments on the basis of inflated, forged and manipulated bills. The vouchers approved by the Executive Director were tampered with and drafts were got issued for higher amounts so as to pocket the excess money. It is alleged that the petitioner in conspiracy with her co-accused, managed to siphon off about Rs. 58 lacs which were got cleared through various bank accounts in the name of the petitioner or in her name as Kiran Goyal or in the name of her husband Sukraj Singh as well as in the name of Nexus Travel Related Services of which she was a partner. Many bills purportedly issued for raising demands against USEFI have been found to be forged and fabricated. Some evidence has been collected to show as to how the overdrawn payments was channelised through different bank accounts in order to get the bank drafts encashed. To quote an example, a bill from Hotel Inter Continental, New Delhi which was for Rs. 1,58,270/- was substituted by a forged and fabricated bill for Rs. 1,95,510/-. A draft for Rs. 1,95,510/- was got issued from USEFI in the name of Nexus Travels and after making the payment of Rs. 1,58,510/- to Hotel Inter Continental, the balance amount was siphoned off.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the whole case against the petitioner is false and fabricated and whatever she had done was under the instructions of her superiors. This plea does not appeal to reason inasmuch as no employee who has no dishonest designs would venture to commit forgeries and fabrications and get the amounts deposited in his own accounts with a view to oblige his superiors. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that challan against the co-accused Arindam Das who is on bail has been filed in which the petitioner has been shown in column No. 2 and as such, she cannot be remanded to police custody nor any further interrogations can be made from her. This Court does not agree with the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner for the reason that by merely avoiding arrest, no accused can take refuge under the plea that he cannot be interrogated by way of remand to police custody.
4. The plea that the co-accused Arindam Das has been enlarged on bail is of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as he was enlarged on bail vide orders dated 10.1.2003 by learned Additional Sessions Judge after he had remained in custody for about three months and had agreed to deposit the misappropriated amount with USEFI.
5. Learned Counsel for the State has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Jagtar Singh v. Satendra Kaur @ Bhavana Graver and Ors. reported in 2002(6) SCALE P-l77 to contend that the petitioner who is absconding, cannot be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. To counter this argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Lahore High Court in Ranjit Singh v. Karim Baksh reported in AIR 1922 Lahore P-475 in which it was observed that Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(old) could be resorted to only when a Court has reason to believe that the accused against whom a warrant has been issued is absconding or is concealing himself so that such a warrant may not be executed. It was observed that a person who files a petition against the order issuing the warrant and takes steps to procure an order of a Superior Court can neither be said to be absconding nor concealing himself. After considering the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment in Jagtar Singh’s case given by the Apex Court is the law of the land. Challenging non-bailable warrants pursuant to which proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr.PC are initiated is one thing and merely applying for anticipatory bail is another. A person who fails to get anticipatory bail cannot contend that proceedings under Section 82/83, Cr.PC could not be initiated against him.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a letter on page 30 of the paper book was written by the Executive Director. However, the prosecution has denied this letter. The E-mail letters copies of which have been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the complainant was threatening her and was pressing her to pay Rs. 24 lacs in cash are disputed by the prosecution and as such, cannot be accepted to be genuine at this stage.
7. The fact, however, remains that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. The embezzeled amount is very high. The chances are that in case the petitioner is arrested and subjected to custodial interrogation, some misappropriated amount may be recovered at her instance. There are no good grounds for enlargement of the petitioner on anticipatory bail as prayed.
The application, therefore, stands dismissed.