***

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J. (ORAL) –

1. Prayer

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (438 Cr.P.C.) for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0009 dated 24.02.2025 under Sections 408 of IPC, 1860 (316 BNS, 2023) registered at Police Station Jaurkian, District Mansa (P-1).

2. Contention

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is neither a case of fraud nor of embezzlement, and no offence is made out against the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner was merely one of the functionaries of the Cooperative Society and was not solely responsible for the affairs or transactions in question. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated owing to the internal disputes prevailing within the Cooperative Society. It is submitted that there is no material to establish any criminal intent or culpability on his part.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State

On the asking of Court, Mr. Rajiv Verma, Addl. A.G, Punjab., accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. He opposes the prayer for grant of bail asserting that as per the allegations contained in the FIR, the petitioner, while working as Secretary in the Cooperative Society, Village Raipur, received certain amounts from different members/shareholders for clearance of their KCC limit accounts and allegedly failed to deposit the same with the Society. It has further been alleged that signed cheques of members were lying with the petitioner and were misused by him, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

3. Analysis

Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and keeping in view the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the petitioner, the fact that the case is largely based on documentary evidence, and the settled principles governing grant of anticipatory bail, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

In the light of above, this Court is of the considered view that there is no valid or cogent reason to deny the bail to the present petitioner, wherein he has bona fide intentions and is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency in time.

4. Relief:-

Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to his joining investigation with the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of 10 days from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS, which are reproduced below:-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a period of ten days, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stands cancelled.

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.

Petition allowed.

********