ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner herein against whom warrant under Section 512 Cr.P.C. has been issued in FIR No. 302/2012 dated 19.11.2012 registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu for commission of offences under Section 420/467/468/120-B RPC by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has filed the present application for cancellation of warrant and admitting him on bail. 2. In the bail application, it has been stated that the petitioner, being at advance and old age, is suffering from various ailments and is undergoing treatment of Doctor for the last more than 20 years of Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertensive Heart Disease; that the respondent registered a false and frivolous FIR against the petitioner along with three more persons namely, Gurbachan Singh, Bhajan Kour and Harpal Singh, who were the Managing Director and Director of the Finance Company having complete control over the management of the Finance Company where the petitioner was working as an employee, but tendered resignation in the year 2007; that the police registered an FIR initially at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, thereafter the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch, Jammu; that the respondent after completion of the investigation submitted the charge-sheet and is pending trial before the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. In the bail application, it has been further stated that as per the charge-sheet, there is no allegation against the petitioner and rightly so because the petitioner who tendered his resignation from the Finance Company in the year 2007 and the FIR was registered by the police on 09.11.2012 for the commission of offence under Section 420 RPC. It has been further stated that the management of Finance Company was all along being handled by the Managing Director and Director of the Finance Company who were constituting a family and after 2007, the petitioner was never associated with the affair of the Finance Company and was settled with his son who was already working outside the State in private sector, though the petitioner was having residential house and oftenly used to stay in the said house, but was never summoned by the police and he has never received any deposit from the depositor and was neither competent to do so. It is stated that petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions which court may impose while admitting him on bail. 3. It is stated that petitioner undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions which court may impose while admitting him on bail. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondent, stating therein that the respondent has made efforts to execute the warrants issued under Section 512 Cr.P.C., but the petitioner has not been found residing at the address given in the petition, which further establishes that the petitioner has absconded, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed; that the petitioner has not surrendered before the Trial Court as such the proceedings under section 512 Cr.P.C. could not have been recalled against the petitioner and also the petitioner has not appeared before the respondent as such avoiding the process of law for so many years; the petitioner does not deserve any concession when he has been avoiding the process of law for so many years. In the objections, it has been further stated that during the course of investigation statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. were recorded; Ledger Books/records of the company containing deposit details, Day Books containing information about the day to day transactions of the depositors of Dutta Finance Company were seized. Record pertaining to immovable property (land and buildings) of Dutta Finance was collected from Revenue department and seized in the case. Bank details of accounts of Dutta Finance Company were also obtained from different bank branches and got frozen. It has been further stated in the objections that during the course of investigation, on the perusal of the seized record and statements of witnesses it was revealed that Gurbachan Singh Dutta, Harpal Singh Dutta, Bhajan Kour and Gurdeep Singh-petitioner herein, were running different fictitious companies under the name and style (1) Dutta Financiers India Ltd. (2) Dutta Trading Corporation, (3) Bhana Financiers India Ltd. (4) Gee-Ess-Associates, (5) Dutta Financiers and Traders and (6) Dutta Wine Trading Corporation. These companies were neither registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) nor with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) except Dutta Financiers India Ltd. The Managing Director of Dutta Finance Company, namely, Harpal Singh Dutta and other Directors, namely, Gurbachan Singh Dutta, Bhajan Kour and Gurdeep Singh-petitioner had received deposits from a large number of depositors by alluring them with the promise of providing double the amount in five years and giving them 10% interest on the deposited money. Later on, in order to defraud his creditors, the Managing Director and other associated company Directors hatched criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of that they changed the name & nomenclature of companies from time to time. After accumulating about Rs. 20 crores from the innocent people, the Managing Director purchased approximately 20 kanal land at Kud, 11 kanal land at Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu and a Godown at Yard No. 6 Narwal, Jammu besides 12 Nos. of tankers out of which 02 Nos. of Oil tankers bearing Registration No. JK12/2376 & JK12/2379 were also seized in the case. Further, that perusal of the record also revealed that these accused person had issued fictitious Fixed Deposit Receipts, which were neither reflected in the ledgers of the companies nor the money taken on such cash receipts was reflected in the income tax returns of balance sheets of the companies. 4. I have considered rival contentions of parties. 5. The brief facts of case are that a written complaint was lodged by one Sardar Joginder Singh with P/s. Gandhi Nagar, Jammu alleging therein that about 1000 depositors of Districts Jammu, Kathua, Samba, Poonch, Baramulla and Srinagar had deposited their hard earned money with a finance company under the name and style "Dutta Financiers" Nanak Nagar, Jammu. In the month of April, 2011, some depositors approached the said finance company for payment of interest and even the deposited money for their personnel use, the Directors and other officials of the said company refused to pay the deposited money to the depositors. The owners/Directors of the said company, namely, Gurbachan Singh Dutta and his son Harpal Singh Dutta had been delaying the payment on flimsy grounds although they had a big fleet of Petrol Tankers and Trucks running on Jammu-Leh road and even in Nepal through the younger son of Gurbachan Singh Dutta, namely, Amarjeet Singh. The Finance company has closed its office now. A month back Harpal Singh left for Delhi in connection with some business deal for the land at Kud, but instead of coming back to Jammu to clear the outstanding amount of so many poor depositors, left for United States of America. The total deposits of the depositors' are approximately 20 to 25 crores. On receipt of this complaint, a formal case FIR was registered in Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The total deposits of the depositors' are approximately 20 to 25 crores. On receipt of this complaint, a formal case FIR was registered in Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. Later on, the investigation of case was transferred to Crime Branch, Jammu vide PHQ order No. 52 of 2013 dated 02.01.2013 for further investigation. 6. After the completion of investigation, challan was produced before competent court and accused Gurbachan Singh Dutta, who was arrested in the case on 22.05.2013, was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on health grounds and one Mst. Bhajan Kour, who was also Director, was granted anticipatory bail by this Court. Other accused, namely, Harpal Singh Dutta and petitioner herein despite best efforts could not be apprehended as they absconded and went out of the country, so proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C. were initiated against both of them. It further appears that petitioner moved an application before the trial court (1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu) for recalling of warrant issued in terms of Section 512 Cr.P.C. and for grant of bail, but the said application was dismissed on 31.10.2018 on the ground that petitioner did not appear before the Court at the time of filing of said application and he also did not surrender before the Court below. 7. Law with regard to bail is now well settled. Nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused, the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, the possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences, interest of public at large and punishment for offences charged, are some of the relevant considerations. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. 8. In the present case, accusations against petitioner are very serious as he along with others accused, were Managing Directors and were running different fictitious companies under the name and style (1) Dutta Financiers India Ltd. (2) Dutta Trading Corporation, (3) Bhana Financiers India Ltd. (4) Gee-Ess-Associates, (5) Dutta Financiers and Traders and (6) Dutta Wine Trading Corporation. 8. In the present case, accusations against petitioner are very serious as he along with others accused, were Managing Directors and were running different fictitious companies under the name and style (1) Dutta Financiers India Ltd. (2) Dutta Trading Corporation, (3) Bhana Financiers India Ltd. (4) Gee-Ess-Associates, (5) Dutta Financiers and Traders and (6) Dutta Wine Trading Corporation. These companies were neither registered with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) nor with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) except Dutta Financiers India Ltd. Further, they had received deposits from a large number of depositors by alluring them with the promise of providing double the amount in five years and giving them 10% interest on the deposited money. Later on, in order to defraud his creditors, the Managing Director and other associated Company Directors hatched criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of that they changed the name & nomenclature of companies from time to time. After accumulating about Rs. 20 crores from the innocent people, the Managing Director purchased approximately 20 kanal land at Kud, 11 kanal land at Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu and a Godown at Yard No. 6 Narwal, Jammu besides 12 Nos. of tankers out of which 02 Nos. of Oil tankers bearing Registration No. JK12/2376 & JK12/2379. Further, petitioner alongwith other accused had issued fictitious Fixed Deposit Receipts, which were neither reflected in the ledgers of the companies nor the money taken on such cash receipts was reflected in the income tax returns of balance sheets of the companies. 9. In this way, all the accused have duped innocent people of crores of money. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail. Petitioner has also not appeared before trial court till today, even when he filed application for recalling the warrant issued under section 512 Cr.P.C., he did not appear. His conduct is also required to be taken note of that, he absconded after lodging of FIR. He is seeking bail in anticipation. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail. Petitioner has also not appeared before trial court till today, even when he filed application for recalling the warrant issued under section 512 Cr.P.C., he did not appear. His conduct is also required to be taken note of that, he absconded after lodging of FIR. He is seeking bail in anticipation. In Adri Dharan Das V. State of West Bengal reported in 2005 A.I.R. S.C.W. 1013, relying on the earlier Constitution Bench judgment in case of Balachand Jain V. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 366, the Supreme Court in para 7 has observed thus:- "The power exercisable under Section 438 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty then power The is power to be exercised under Section being of important nature it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial forums i.e. the Court of Session or the High Court. It is the power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence. The object which is sought to be achieved by Section 438 of the Code is that the moment a person is arrested if he has already obtained an order from the Court of Session or High Court, he shall be released immediately on bail without being sent to jail. The Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Chandravadan Desai & Ors. Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2006 Cri.LJ. 136 while considering bail application of the applicants therein has observed thus:- Accused a Director of Bank and others involved in Bank Scam-Siphoned off funds of Bank worth crores by bogus loans and fictitious letters of credit in name of their friends, relatives etc. -Offence is very serious- Evidence showing their prima facie involvement in offence-Having regard to huge amounts involved there is danger of accused absconding, if released on bail, or attempting to tamper with evidence by pressurizing witnesses - Refusal of bail is proper." 10. -Offence is very serious- Evidence showing their prima facie involvement in offence-Having regard to huge amounts involved there is danger of accused absconding, if released on bail, or attempting to tamper with evidence by pressurizing witnesses - Refusal of bail is proper." 10. In the fact situation of the present case, there is sufficient material available on record to infer that all the Directors joined hands and siphoned crores of money of innocent persons on false promise of giving huge interest; but in fact they used money for personal use and purchased huge properties. In view of above, this petition is dismissed.