Embezzlement of funds: HC reject anticipatory bail of court employee 

The Himachal Pradesh High court rejected bail application of  a court employee who was booked in embezzlement of funds under section

409, 420, 467 and 471 of IPC in Police Station B anjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh on the complaint of district judge.

A complaint lodged by Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, informing that during inspection conducted by the District Judge, Kullu, on 5.11.2022, some discrepancies were found in the receipt book and it transpired that entire amount received for imposition of fine in Challans, under Motor Vehicles Act, was not deposited in the Government Treasury and there was tampering in the record.

Opposing bail, the Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioner is an employee of the court and, therefore, his conduct is more serious than any other person, as it amounts not only to misappropriation/embezzlement, but has also lowered the reputation of the court by tarnishing

its image, where a common man comes with faith, trust and hope of honesty and fair treatment. Single judge bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said in a four paged order that considering the facts brought before the court it could  not be said that accusation in the present case have been made with object of injuring or humiliating the petitioner. Without commenting upon the merits of the rival contentions and taking into consideration the entire material placed before the court,  the  judge held that having concern that impact of granting or non-grant of bail on the society, especially with respect to working of the Court, I find that petitioner is not entitled for

anticipatory at this stage.

It is worthwhile to mention here, that petitioner admitted his guilt before the Investigating Officer, investigation and produced Rs 1,61,750/- to the police which were taken in possession. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has served 33 years in the judiciary and after one year he is going to retire but due to urgent need for money for solemnization of marriage of daughter, he could not deposit the amount in the treasury.