Prem Tyagi vs State of Haryana

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Managing Director, Yamuna Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, alleging that the Khajuri Cooperative Society which has now been amalgamated in the Naharpur PACS (Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society) on 23.10.2006, and an amount of approximately Rs. 1.14 crores has been embezzled and misappropriated by the employees during the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.03.2008. The petitioner is also one of the five employees who have committed embezzlement by not making entries in the receipt books and by not updating entries in the day book. It is alleged that they have mis-utilized a huge amount by tampering the day book.

Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no offence is made out against the petitioner as the petitioner neither remained an employee of the society nor he had any concern with Khajuri Cooperative Society where the embezzlement and misutilization of money has been alleged. It is contended that as a matter of fact five societies were amalgamated in the Naharpur PACS (Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society) and the petitioner did not remain posted during the period of alleged embezzlement i.e. during 1999 to 2008 at Khajuri Cooperative Society Private Limtied.

On the other hand, counsel for the complainant and counsel for the State have argued that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager Naggal committed various acts of omissions for which he was served a charge sheet regarding the embezzlement of bank funds; violation of Rules/instructions; misuse of power; and negligence in performance of his duties and that his four increments have been stopped.

It was argued that the petitioner had remained negligent in fairly supervising the accounts of society as there are serious allegations of embezzlement of huge amount running in crores and that the petitioner has got a record of having earlier been found guilty of having made embezzlements and have deposited lacks of rupees which had allegedly been embezzled by him, as such, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

I have taken into consideration the report of In Charge of Economic Cell dated 22.03.2006, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner making the observations that the petitioner had been wrongly dragged due to groupism in the bank.

I have gone through the report of Economic Cell. It is less of a report but more of a recommendation Certificate to the petitioner and on the face of it appears to be unfair and partial.

No ground is made out for the grant of pre-arrest bail.

Dismissed.

Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail.