1. Applicant is a head constable and was posted at Police headquarters incharge of petrol pump. He received petrol from P. S. O. And supplied to police vehicles, lie maintained the record. It is alleged by the prosecution that he has misappropriated a large amount of money in the result of committing theft of the petrol. F. I. R. Wits lodged on 1st January 1981, and the investigation was taken in hand. Applicant was arrested on 1st July 1981, and interim challan has been presented is the Court on 15th July 1981.
2. On three occasions bail applications have been moved before the trial Court which have been rejected. First application was rejected vide order dated 12July 1981, second vide order dated 21st July 1981, and third vide order dated 28th July 1981.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before me that in this case the investigation is over and the applicant has been remanded to jail custody on 15th July 1981, and whatever documentary evidence was necessary to sustain the charges has been seized by the investigating agency as such the applicant be now enlarged on bail. The offence alleged against the applicant is under section 409, P. P. C. Which is punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for 10 years. It is contended by the learned counsel that no specific amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the applicant has been mentioned in F, I. R. And in challan an amount of Rs, 97,537 and 16 paisas has been shown. It is further stated that the trial Court while rejecting the bail applications was impressed by the tact that the amount involved was enormous.
4. The learned counsel states that there is variation in the amounts and the prosecution is not certain as to what particular amount has been misappropriated. D. S. P. Who has investigated this case was called in the Court and he has stated that the amount is increasing for the reason thatth checking of the records is going on and it is being found that there are more misappropriations in the result whereof the amount alleged to be misappropriated is increasing from time to time in conformity with the progress of the investigation. Another ground on which bail plea is urged and was so urged before the trial Court on previous occasions is that whatever shortage hers been found in the storage of petrol at the pump in the charge of the applicant was for the reason that there was a defect in the reservoir in the result whereof there was leakage of the petrol and in that context, the applicant had made complaints in writing to S. P. On this premise it is argued that whatever shortage has been found due to the defect in the reservoir which was not put right, The learned Additional A. G, has submitted that the applicant was posted as incharge of the petrol pump since a long time and had started misappropriating the petrol and for the first time on 15th April 1978, he made a written complaint the S. P. Concerned about leakage in the tank and immediate action wt taken upon that application and an expert was called from P. S. O.
5. Who inspected the reservoir and found that there was no defect in it and there was no leakage.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended before me that this is a fit case for grant of bail and the same should not be rejected on the grounds that a large amount has been embezzled and that the applicant after being enlarged on bail is likely to tamper with evidence. In support of this proposition the learned counsel has cited before me 1978 SCMR 64. In the reported case the accused was being tried for several offences including 409, P. P. C. And his bail plea was rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court and ultimately he was released on bail by the Supreme Court. Although the facts of the reported case are different but one thing is clearly borne out that the accused had remained in custody for at least more than 13 months after which he was released on bail by the order of the Supreme Court, The reported case also shows that before the grant of the bail the Supreme Court was pleased to direct the trial Court on previous bail application to expedite the trial proceedings and it was left open to the accused to apply for bail after some evidence was recorded but even in spite of that direction there was no progress in the trial Court hence the accused applied for bail for the second time in the High Court and that bail application was rejected rind the petition was filed to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal which was granted. The learned counsel for the applicant present before me has cited some other rulings which are distinguishable.
7. On the other hand the prosecution case is apart from what is stated above that there is documentary evidence in the possession of the investi--gating agency to sustain the charge alleged against the applicant. The investigating agency is in possession of the two registers which are called stock register which were being maintained by the applicant and in one register he made entries with regard to the incoming petrol and in the other he has made entries with regard to the supply of the petrol to police vehicles. It is the case of the prosecution that in the register flowing incoming petrol entries have not been made by the applicant although petrol has been received by him from the company which is alleged to have been misappropriated. Investigating agency has also seized supply forms which are originally issued by the oil company while supplying petrol to the applicant. It is stated that while issuing such forms the company makes several copies in respect of a particular transac--tion containing details about quantity of the petrol, number of the truck, date of receipt, etc, and one copy is retained in the office of the oil company while the other copy is retained by the applicant at the petrol pump. It is further stated that after the petrol is received the applicant used to sign the supply form and send it back to the oil company. On company has produced several such supply forms which are duly signed by the applicant showing receipt of quantities of petrol, which has not been shown in the stock register and no accounts are maintained to cover that supply to police vehicles and it is alleged that the petrol has been misappropriated. It is also stated that after receiving the quantities of the petrol from the company the applicant has not made entries in the register showing the receipt and such evidence has been found by the investigating agency after inspecting the record of the oil company. It is also stated that as more and more record is being checked in the oil company more and more transactions of misappropriations are being discovered as such the amount alleged to have been misappropriated appears to be increasing as the investigation is making progress.
8. Keeping in view the evidence and for that matter documentary evidence in posses--sion of the investigating agency and the fact that the case is fresh and section 409, P. P. C, is punishable with life imprisonment or for a term extending to 10 years, I feel disinclined to grant bail.
9. Bail plea is rejected.