AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.') for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner, in FIR No.197 dated 06.06.2019, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Pinjore.
The allegations of the prosecution are that petitioner-Sunil Sethi has committed the criminal breach of trust and cheated the HMT Employees Cooperative Consumer Society Ltd., Pinjore in conspiracy with other co-accused including P.K. Sinha, DGM-cum-President; Prem Chand, Manager; Daljeet Singh; Deepak Bhardwaj; Anil Sharma; Moti Ram and Mange Ram to the tune of more than Rs. 3 crores. Even internal vigilance reports dated 02.07.2018 and 30.11.2008 were also conducted in the matter.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that whatever entries were available with the petitioner, have been made in the record and he has not committed any offence.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature as he has put the Society to a great financial loss.
Heard both sides and perused the paper-book.
In pursuance of previous orders passed by this Court, Additional Status report by way of affidavit of Ramesh Gulia, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kalka, Panchkula has already been filed and Paragraph-3 thereof, reveals that the petitioner in connivance with other co-accused has embezzled the huge amount of the HMT Employees Co-operative Consumer Society Ltd., which, in total, comes out to Rs. 3,01,01,264/- ( Rs. 1,11,54,378/- + Rs. 1,89,46,886/-).
Since there are serious allegations against the petitioner regarding defrauding the public sector undertaking, therefore, his custodial interrogation is very much required; thus, no ground, for grant of anticipatory bail to him, is made out.
Petition stands dismissed.
However, the above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.