S K MARWAHA Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Cr. Misc. Nos. 3576 -M and 3578 -M of 1985 filed by S.K. Marwaha and S.S. Ahuja, respectively, praying for anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE petitioners are stated to have embezzled the amount of about rupees four lakhs. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioners that they have not committed any offence and it is not desirable that they should be detained in custody when they are prepared to join themselves with the investigation. Mr. H.S. Brar, Advocate appearing for the Union Territory has submitted that the investigating officer had contacted the petitioners at Delhi and directed them to meet him in his office at Chandigarh, for interrogation purpose, but they did not come to Chandigarh and instead they sent telegrams informing the investigating officer that they were indisposed and they will be meeting him on 1.7.1985. Be that as it may, the petitioners instead of going to the investigating officers at Chandigarh, obtained ad interim anticipatory bail from this Court on the same day.

(3.) THE nature of the charge against the petitioners as contained in the first information report and the police diaries is serious. The fact that the allegations relate to embezzlement of a huge amount cannot be brushed aide. A perusal of the police record shows that the investigation so far conducted has revealed the complicity of the petitioner's in the case. Whether or not the accusation is correct is not to be seen at this stage as indeed such a consideration would be pre -mature and I would not like to express any opinion on that aspect of the case. Suffice it to say that the accusations against the petitioners are of a serious nature. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the arrest of the petitioners is required for making recoveries of documents and cash and also for ascertainment of the material facts regarding the disposal of the property. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the State Counsel has opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners either on extraneous or irrelevant grounds. Since an order of anticipatory bail is somewhat of an extra -ordinary character while exercising discretion the Court must be satisfied that a fit case had been made out by the accused for the exercise of the discretion. Applying the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh Sibia and others v. The State of Punjab, 1980 SC C(Cr.) 465, I find that the petitioners have not made out any case for being admitted to anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the accusations and the larger interest of the public and the State, I do not find any justification to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail. Both the petitions are accordingly rejected. Petitions rejected.