HC reject anticipatory bail of court employee

A complaint lodged by Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Banjar, informed that during inspection conducted by the District Judge, Kullu, on November 5 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 tampering of records as also done.

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 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 bail at this stage.

Noteworthy, 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 solemnisation of marriage of his daughter, he could not deposit the amount in the Treasury.