PUNIT KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest with respect to the proceedings in Crime No.358/2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408 , 468 , 418 , 420 , 477-A , 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case that is made out in the complaint is that the Manager of Sapthagiri Hospital has lodged a complaint alleging that there is misappropriation of funds and in the said complaint, certain persons have been named as having indulged in misappropriation of funds with respect to the period from 2011 to 2018. On the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered and the investigation is still in progress.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that serious efforts on to arrest the petitioner on the basis of the alleged statements of the co-accused. He further stated that the petitioner was employed on a contract basis and the management vests in higher authorities above the petitioner in hierarchy. It is further contended that the persons in the complaint have already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail and released as per the order passed in Crl.P.No.655/2019 as regards accused No.8 and also in Crl.P.No.276/2019 with respect to accused No.6. He further states that even on the principle of parity, the petitioner can be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the persons named in the complaint are already enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the petitioners name was not found in the complaint.