REEMA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----44449999333355553333 ooooffff 2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 2222 sanctioning loan to the customers after taking proper documents from them and to collect the overdue amount from the customers once become overdue and/or to get the EMI of customers deposited in company's account directly via G-pay, Paytm, etc. The complainant company posted them as Branch Manager, Business Process Manager and FLO respectively. They were not supposed to get the EMI deposited in their own personal bank account and were not supposed to get the amount diverted to another one's bank account than the company's bank account. Once the EMI/Foreclosure amount collected in cash by the FLO/BM, the same needed to be deposited on the very same day to the Bank Account, Customer Service Point (CSP) of payment banks of the complainant company against payment slip/receipt of the Bank/CSP and if the BM and FLO got delayed in deposition, then it was mandatory on their part to deposit the amount in the branch and BM was supposed to keep the cash in the vault (operated by two keys i.e. one key with BM and another with BPM) after entering the details in the cash register and thereafter the cash so deposited in the vault would be drawn from the vault and would use to be deposited in the company's account. Once the amount deposited against deposit slip/Receipt issued by the Bank/CSP, the scan images of the same was used to be uploaded in the system of the Company by the BM and verified by the BPM and the same was to be audited branch-wise in routine frequency. But during unreconciled receipt audit verification of Raikot Branch of the complainant company, it was found that accused Sandeep Kumar and Arshdeep Singh deposited amounts by fabricated and fake deposit slips which were never issued by the respective banks nor pertained to the transactions related to the complainant company. On further inquiry from CSP, it was found that the BM took deposit slip(s) from the vendor without cash deposit to the merchant. An amount of Rs.565430/- was involved in such transaction After confession to the offence by accused, they deposited a sum of Rs.565430/- and Rs. 169410/- taken from 59 Customers were yet to be deposited. During field scanning and interaction with various customers, it was also found that all 8 accused in connivance with each other collected the foreclosure amounts from various customers on pretext that they would get the loan foreclosed with good waiver in the overdue amount and believing the commitment of accused, the customers deposited the amounts for loan closure REEMA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----44449999333355553333 ooooffff 2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 3333 with the accused in cash and/or in their personal bank account even without receipt. However, to conceal their misconduct, accused used to deposit the amount towards the due amount so that the wrong doing could not come to surface. An amount of Rs. 1064438/ had been used by the accused with sole intent of their wrongful gain and to cause wrongful harm to the complainant company. Now the company assessed the wrongful harm of Rs. 17,75,920/-caused intentionally by the accused. In this manner, all the accused cheated and embezzled the above said amount by fabricating the documents.’ 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been working with complainant, L&T Finance Limited, as Field Officer for three years. There was never any complaint regarding his integrity. As Filed Officer, his duty was only to collect installments from the loanees and deposit the same with the company. He refers to Annexure P2, (Page 32 to 49) to contend that the amounts received from the loanees had been paid to Sandeep, Branch Manager, the main accused. It is argued that the petitioner, being Field Officer did not have the authority to make deposits directly in the account of the complainant. It is further argued that petitioner, who had clean antecedents, was ready and willing to join investigation. Therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Mr. Kunwarbir Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in the Court accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting on instructions from ASI Harpreet Singh that payments to Sandeep Annexure P-2 were yet to be verified. He referred to contents of FIR to submit that the payments could not have been made by the petitioner to the Bank Manager and were required to be deposited in the Branch or in the bank account of the complainant. He argued that on account REEMA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh CCCCRRRRM M M M----M M M M----44449999333355553333 ooooffff 2222000022226666((((OOOO&&&&M M M M)))) 4444 of offences committed by petitioner, complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3 lakh. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner was required to effect recoveries. Prayer for dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail was made. 6. The benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of course or routine. Role attributed to the accused is required to be considered with great care and caution. Anticipatory bail being an extra-ordinary remedy is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the accused has been falsely involved in the crime. Petitioner, Field Officer of complainant L&T Finance Limited, NBFC, who was entrusted with the duty to collect EMIs from customers, allegedly collected the amount but instead of depositing the amount in the bank account of complainant, made payments to co-accused in his personal account. The amount was collected from customers without receipts on the allurement that he would get the loan foreclosed. Even though custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required by the Investigating Agency, the nature and gravity of allegations and status of the petitioner in the complainant company, does not make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ((((SSSSHHHHAAAALLLLIIIINNNNIIII SSSSIIIINNNNGGGGHHHH NNNNAAAAGGGGPPPPAAAALLLL)))) JJJJUUUUDDDDGGGGEEEE 00002222....00009999....2222000022226666 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI 2026.09.03 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document high court chandigarh