JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Amarjit Singh, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 38 dated 21.03.2012 at Police Station Shimlapuri, Ludhiana City, District Ludhiana, for an offence punishable under section 406 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been working for the complainant on commission basis. According to him, he was supplying the goods of the complainant to various customers and was receiving payment of those goods by way of cheques drawn in the name of the complainant and he was handing over the cheques to the complainant. He has submitted that the petitioner never received any payment in cash and therefore, there is no question of his misappropriating any amount. He has further submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are vague because the FIR does not mention as to what is the amount found lying in the account of the petitioner. He has further submitted that at the best the allegations constitute an offence punishable under section 403 IPC, which is bailable as well as noncognizance. 3. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that huge amount had been deposited by the petitioner in his account and he had no explanation for that amount in his account. According to him, the clients of the complainant have given in writing that the payment had been made by them in cash also. He drew my attention in this regard to communication from Sudarshan Auto Industries. 4. It is not established before me that all payments had been received by the petitioner by way of cheques. Annexure P-5 is the copy of statement of account of the petitioner Amarjit Singh, held by him with Union Bank of India, G T Road, Ludhiana, which shows that between 15.09.2010 and 19.03.2012, he had deposited an amount of Rs.8,15,132/- in his account. Learned counsel for the petitioner fails to explain the entries of this account. Though he tried to submit that he had other business also but he could not give the details of the said other business. 5. Looking to the nature of the allegations and the involvement of lot of money, I find the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for investigation of this case is necessary. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 5. Looking to the nature of the allegations and the involvement of lot of money, I find the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for investigation of this case is necessary. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------