2020 (12) TMI 478 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of anticipatory bail - Recovery of embezzled amount - issuance of false and forged passports by the petitioner - Sections 406 and 420 of IPC - HELD THAT - It appears that the petitioner is trying to muddle up his personal transaction with Narinder Kumar Sharma with that of the complainant. A dispute arising out of partnership in M/s Arihant Filling Station in first appearance has nothing to do with the present allegations, however, complicity of the petitioner would be subject to custodial interrogation. Second son of the petitioner i.e. Tijinder also filed complaint against the petitioner in respect of his own transactions and that has no relevance with the present allegations arising out of FIR in question. In entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the 4 of 5 custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in order to effect recoveries of the amount and other incriminating record. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of embezzlement under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving FIR No.522 dated 14.07.2020, alleging embezzlement under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station HTM Hisar, District Hisar. The complainant accused the petitioner, as the Secretary of a cooperative society, of persuading her to deposit money promising high returns and gifts. The complainant deposited money, including her disabled son's, based on assurances from the petitioner and his brother. However, the petitioner allegedly embezzled the funds, as revealed by a report from ARCS, Hisar, leading to the registration of the FIR.

The petitioner claimed to have returned the excess amount to the complainant and cited ongoing litigations between them. In contrast, the State counsel argued that the petitioner embezzled ?35,00,662 without depositing it in the society's account, using false passbooks. Investigations confirmed the non-deposit of funds and highlighted discrepancies in the passbooks bearing the petitioner's signatures, indicating fraudulent activities.

The court noted attempts by the petitioner to confuse personal transactions with the complainant's case and emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to recover the embezzled amount and incriminating evidence. Despite the petitioner's arguments, the court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, concluding that custodial interrogation was necessary for effective recovery and investigation based on the circumstances of the case.