MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 392 dated 10.10.1997 registered under Sections 408, 406, 420 IPC Police Station Gohana. Petitioner was working in Jolly Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Jolly, Tehsil Gohana District Sonepat. According to the averments made in the FIR the petitioner was accused of embezzling an amount of Rs. 9,71,734/- which amount together with the interest swelled to Rs. 10,49,560/-. The matter regarding this amount, was referred to arbitrator and arbitration proceedings are pending in this case. The petitioner has contended that the dispute, which is of civil nature, is yet to be resolved by the arbitrator. At the time of issuance of notice of motion the petitioner had relied on two judgments reported in Naranjan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1975 CLR 212 and Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1975 CLR 612. In the case of Naranjan Singh (supra) it was found that the matter regarding the amount of embezzlement had been referred to arbitration and the dispute was to be resolved in the arbitration proceedings. A learned single Judge of this Court held in para 4 as under :-

(2.) IN case of Randhir Singh (supra) also a learned single Judge of this Court held that "Since the parties have already resorted to arbitration proceedings, it will be appropriate to issue a direction as required by Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code." Accordingly, the learned single Judge in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(3.) 1. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in case FIR No. 392 dated 10.10.1997 under Sections 406, 408, 420 IPC Police Station Gohana, he shall be admitted to bail by the Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer subject to his satisfaction. 2. The petitioner shall join the investigation of the case and associate himself in the investigation as and when called upon to do so. 3. During the period of anticipatory bail the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. 4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned court without obtaining prior permission of the court of competent jurisdiction.