Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amit Kumar vs State Of Union Territory ... on 4 July, 2023
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 11:30
2023:PHHC:083948
CRM-M-59003-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59003-2022 (O & M)
Date of decision: 04.07.2023
Amit Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh
keene Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. B.S.Rana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Addl. PP, U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate,
for the complainant.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (QRAL)
CRM-26822-2023
Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-6 to P-8 are taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-59003-2022
1. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case
bearing FIR No.176 dated 12.10.2022, registered at Police Station
Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, under Sections 406, 408, 467, 419,
420, 120-B, 468, 471 and 477-A IPC.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the petitioner
was arrested in the present case on 22.10.2022; that no recovery had been
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 11:30
2023:PHHC:083948
CRM-M-59003-2022
effected from the petitioner; that challan has already been presented; that
case of the prosecution is entirely based on documentary evidence and that
the aforesaid offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is
further contended that the petitioner is even entitled to default bail under
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for the reason that the prosecution has filed an
incomplete challan.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contends that
most of the allegations are civil in nature; that in fact, the petitioner, who
was an accountant in the company of the complainant, tendered his
resignation from the aforesaid post on 23.09.2021, but he had been asked
by the complainant to continue on part time basis till March, 2022, and that
the petitioner had never misappropriated any amount as alleged in the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel and the learned
counsel for the complainant, while opposing the grant of bail to the
petitioner, submit that the petitioner forged the signatures of the
complainant and had embezzled the amount of Rs.1 crore approximately by
transferring the same to the account of his wife and other relatives and to
his loan account/by clearing his bills of credit card.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. No doubt, the petitioner was an employee of the complainant.
The above-noted FIR has been registered against the petitioner for forging
the signatures of the complainant over the cheques which had been
entrusted to the petitioner during the job tenure.
7. Indisputably, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since
25.10.2022 and no recovery has been effected from him. The report of
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 11:30
2023:PHHC:083948
CRM-M-59003-2022
CFSL is still awaited. All the offences are triable by the Judicial Magistrate
Ist Class. The prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. It will take
quite a while for the trial to be completed. Therefore, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
8. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the
merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is
allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate.
04.07.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
