INDER SEN ISRANI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and also perused the case -diary as well as the order of the learned trial court.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is said to have taken place from 10th July to 13th Oct., 1986, and the FIR in respect of the same was lodged under Section 409, IPC, on 2nd May, 1987; and that, the allegation is that the petitioner after taking ticket -books, did not give any account for the same. From the statement of Satya Narain, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, it comes out that account was to be given every month for the ticket -books issued to him. It is alleged that no account was given by the petitioner for the whole above period and the matter came into light only when audit -report was received. I fail to understand as to how fresh ticket -books were issued every time when no account for the ticket -books issued earlier, was given by the petitioner, as was required under the procedure of the Corporation, as stated by Satya Narain, in his statement, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC. Evidently, no fresh tickets could be issued to the petitioner, unless account was given by him for the earlier tickets issued to him.
(3.) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.;