The seriousness of the offences, the nature of the accusations, and the prima facie evidence against the petitioner were central to the court's decision in denying the grant of regular bail.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. - The petitioner has filed the present (first) petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 70 dated 29.07.2020 registered under Sections 408, 420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') at Police Station North, Chandigarh to which Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were added later on.

2. Sh. Sushil Singla, Managing Director of M/s Supreme Securities Limited submitted written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh against Vipin Kumar Dua, Regional Manager (the petitioner); Ankur Moudgill, Assistant Manager; Priya Sharma, Senior Executive and Sukhchain Singh, Field Executive - employees of M/s Supreme securities Limited working in its Sector 8-C Branch. In the complaint, it has been inter-alia alleged that all the above said four accused persons were responsible for the day to day business of the branch and to maintain the accounts books in due course of the business. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have misappropriated and embezzled amount of, at least, Rs. 4,91,61,424/- which amount was in their possession as property of the Company as its employees/agents. The breakup of the amount of Rs. 4,91,61,424/- is (i) Rs. 91,97,400/- as foreign currency given to Ashu Forex + (ii) Rs. 13,71,750/- outstanding in the books of Ashu Forex + (iii) Rs. 20,43,880/- as foreign currency given to Jupiter Forex (net amount receivable as per books of accounts of the company from Jupiter Forex being Rs 20,41,700/-) + (iv) Rs. 80,30,692/- withdrawn from ICICI Bank Account + (v) Rs 2,78,07,425/- equivalent foreign currencies + (vi) Rs. 6,96,616/- available as cash in the Branch + (vii) Rs. 15,841/- withdrawn from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The complainant accordingly requested for registration of FIR against them under the appropriate penal provisions of law and recovery of the embezzled/misappropriated amount. The police investigated the case and arrested the petitioner on 14.09.2020 and on completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against him.

3. The petitioner being in custody has filed the present petition for grant of regular bail.

4. The petition has been opposed by the respondent U.T. Chandigarh in terms of status report by way of affidavit of Sukhraj Katewa, DSP-EOW, Chandigarh and also by the complainant but no reply to the petition has been filed by the complainant.

5. I have learned arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor for U.T. Chandigarh and learned Senior Counsel for the complainant and gone through the relevant record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner have argued that the petitioner made complaints dated 21.05.2020 and 22.05.2020 to the Reserve Bank of India and the Enforcement Directorate respectively highlighting the various illegalities and violations of the foreign exchange regulations and anti money laundering guidelines being committed by M/s Supreme securities Limited. The petitioner has been implicated in false criminal case by lodging the present FIR due to sheer malice and enmity towards him and to punish and penalize him for being a whistle blower protesting against flagrant and deliberate violation of laws by his employers for the sake of earning profits. The petitioner had resigned on 28.04.2020 and his employment was terminated on 15.07.2020. Accusations of embezzlement of huge sums of money have been levelled against the petitioner without any documentary proof what so ever. The bank accounts as well as all cash transactions were managed and controlled by the head office. The credentials/passwords of the bank accounts were available with the head office of the Bank. Duplicate set of the safe vault keys for the Chandigarh Branch was available with the Managing Director. Three CCTV Cameras were installed in the premises of the Branch. The Auditors appointed by the head office periodically conducted audits. Discrepanci