Embezzlement of funds: HC reject anticipatory bail of court Employees 

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  Additional Advocate General submits 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 of amount, but has also lowered down reputation of the Court by tarnishing its image, where a common man comes with faith, trust and hope of honest and fair treatment. Single judge bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur said in four paged order that  considering facts brought before the court it could not be said that accusation in present case has been made with object of injuring or humiliating the petitioner  .Without commenting upon the merits of rival contentions and taking into consideration the entire material placed before court 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 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 submits that Petitioner has served 33 years in the judiciary and after one year he is going to retire but due to urgent need of money for solemnization of marriage of his daughter, he could not deposit the amount in the Treasury.