Judgment Sanjay Dhar, J.—Through the medium of the instant petition, petitioner has sought bail in anticipation of his arrest in case FIR No. 83/2020 for offences under Sections 420/418/409 IPC registered with the Police Station, Sunderbani, Rajouri. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition are that the aforesaid FIR came to be registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the employer of the petitioner i.e. J&K Bank through its Manager, Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs.37,63,838/- from various account holders of the Bank during his tenure in the J&K Bank, Branch Suderbani with an intention to commit fraud and criminal breach of trust as a Banker for his wrongful gain and wrongful loss to the Bank and its customers. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a FIR No. 93/2020 for offences under Sections 409/418/420 IPC came to be registered with Police Station, Sunderbani. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in the case; that though, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.12.2019, but his employer i.e. J&K Bank remained silent for a considerable period of time which creates a doubt about the story projected by the Bank; that the investigation of the case is complete and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner hampering the investigation; that rigor of Sub-section (1) of Section 437 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable to the case of the petitioner; that the bail should not be denied to the petitioner as a measure of inflicting punishment upon him and that the petitioner will abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if he is enlarged on bail. 4. The application has been resisted by the respondent by filing its reply thereto. In its reply, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.37,63,838/- from the J&K Bank during his tenure as an employee of the said Bank at Sunderbani. According to the respondent, a Special Investigating Team headed by SDPO, Nowshera has been constituted to investigate the case and during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner, who was an employee of the J&K Bank, misused his official position and fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs. According to the respondent, a Special Investigating Team headed by SDPO, Nowshera has been constituted to investigate the case and during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner, who was an employee of the J&K Bank, misused his official position and fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs. 37,63,838/- from the accounts of different account holders, thereby causing wrongful loss to the Bank and its customers due to which the faith of general public in the Banking institution and its employees has been shattered. It is further averred that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri has already dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and thereafter efforts were made to secure his presence by making a request in this regard to the Managing Director of J&K Bank, but the petitioner did not bother to attend the investigation. It is also averred that efforts have been made to arrest the petitioner from his residence and other places, but he has remained untraced and that he is deliberately evading arrest. The respondent in its reply has given the details of the efforts which have been made to apprehend the petitioner which includes the procuring of warrant of arrest under Section 73 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunderbani. According to the respondent, offences under Sections 409/418/420 IPC stand established against the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Primarily, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that offence under Section 409 IPC is not made out against the petitioner even if the allegations made in the police report are taken at their face value. The learned counsel has vehemently contended that the relationship between a Banker and its employees is not in the nature of a trust as the money deposited by the customers in the Bank can be utilized by the Bank in the manner in which it deems appropriate in the interest of its business. According to learned counsel, the relationship between the customers and the Banker is that of a creditor and a debtor. Thus, according to learned counsel, the petitioner having not been entrusted with the money belonging to the customers cannot be said to have committed a criminal breach of trust. According to learned counsel, the relationship between the customers and the Banker is that of a creditor and a debtor. Thus, according to learned counsel, the petitioner having not been entrusted with the money belonging to the customers cannot be said to have committed a criminal breach of trust. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Deochand Duriabhji Jogi vs. Madanlal Gopikisan Sharma, (1968) 70 BOMLR 280 and Judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in the case of Nadir Ali Barqa Zaidi vs State of U.P (Criminal Appeal 535,541/1957, decided on 29th July 1959). 7. Per contra, learned Dy. AG for respondents has contended that the petitioner is involved in an economic offence which is a class apart, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 730, decided on 09.05.2013) and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, (Cr. Appeal No. 1711/2019, decided on 19.11.2019). 8. So far as the principles for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest are concerned, the same have been laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and ors vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 565. The Court has while observing that the question, whether to grant bail or not, depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict held as under: “In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and “the larger interests of the public or the state” are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail”. 9. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail”. 9. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 694 has, while observing that no inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail, held that the following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: “(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail”. 10. In the light of the aforequoted principles laid down by the Supreme Court, let me now proceed to analyze the facts of the instant case. 11. As already noted, it has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the allegations made in the subject FIR are taken at their face value, the offence under Section 409 ICP is not made out against the petitioner. Although, during these proceedings, we cannot test the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel, yet, even in these proceedings, frivolity or genuineness of the prosecution case has to be gone into. 12. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner was not the trustee of money belonging to the customers as his position was that of a Banker, prima facie, appears to be misplaced. A distinction has to be made between the relationship of the customers with the bank and the relationship of the Bank with its employees. 12. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that, the petitioner was not the trustee of money belonging to the customers as his position was that of a Banker, prima facie, appears to be misplaced. A distinction has to be made between the relationship of the customers with the bank and the relationship of the Bank with its employees. There can be no dispute to the proposition that once the customers deposit their money in the Bank, it becomes the property of the Bank and the Bank is free to deal with it in its best commercial interest. But so far as the employees of the Bank are concerned, they deal with the money of the bank and hold the same as trustees of their employer. A Bank employee may not have a relationship of trust qua the customers, but he or she certainly has a relationship of trust with his employer i.e the Bank. This fine distinction has to be borne in mind while considering the question, whether an offence of criminal breach of trust is made out against an employee of a Bank when he is alleged to have fraudulently withdrawn money belonging to the customers from the accounts maintained with his employer i.e the Bank. The alleged act of the petitioner falls into this category. Therefore, it cannot be said that the case set up by the prosecution against the petitioner is frivolous. 13. Another factor, which needs to be taken into account while considering the application for anticipatory bail in the cases of this nature, is the possibility the accused to flee from justice. In the instant case, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondent that following the disclosure of involvement of petitioner in the subject FIR, efforts were made to secure his presence and a request was made to the Managing Director of J&K Bank to direct the accused to attend the Police Station, Sunderbani, but the petitioner did not bother to attend the investigation. It has been further submitted that efforts have been made to arrest the accused from his residence and other places, but he could not be traced. As per the report of the respondent, police parties were deputed to Jammu many times, but the petitioner is evading arrest. It has been further submitted that efforts have been made to arrest the accused from his residence and other places, but he could not be traced. As per the report of the respondent, police parties were deputed to Jammu many times, but the petitioner is evading arrest. Even the CDRs of Mobile number of the petitioner were obtained to trace his location, but his Mobile phone is stated to have been switched off. A warrant of arrest under Section 73 of Cr.P.C is stated to have been obtained from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunderbani and teams are stated to have been deputed to effect the arrest of the petitioner, but without any success. The respondent in its reply has given full details about the efforts made by the police to apprehend the petitioner. 14. Further, a perusal of the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunderbani which is on record of the file shows that the petitioner had moved an application for grant of surrender bail, but he did not surrender before the Magistrate. While passing the said order, the Magistrate has noted that despite directions, the petitioner did not surrender before the Court and when the physical presence of the petitioner before the Court was insisted upon, he failed to do so compelling the Magistrate to dismiss his bail application. 15. From the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has, from the very inception, dodged the investigating agency and he has not made himself available before the investigating agency. In these circumstance, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood that he may flee from justice. 16. Another factor which is required to be taken into account while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is the nature and gravity of accusation and the role of the petitioner. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have siphoned off more than Rs.37.00 lacs from the accounts of customers of his employer i.e. J&K Bank. The investigating agency has collected material to support this allegation during the course of investigation conducted so far. The role of the petitioner in the commission of alleged fraud, in these circumstances, cannot be doubted at this stage. The investigating agency has collected material to support this allegation during the course of investigation conducted so far. The role of the petitioner in the commission of alleged fraud, in these circumstances, cannot be doubted at this stage. Offences of this kind are very grave in nature and cannot be taken lightly, otherwise the customers are bound to lose faith and trust in the Banking system. 17. There is yet another aspect of the matter which is required to be taken note of. The amount of money alleged to have been withdrawn by the petitioner from the accounts of the customers has not been recovered so far. The recovery of the said amount may not be possible without the arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner. Therefore, if the petitioner is admitted to anticipatory bail, it will have an adverse impact on the investigation of the case. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner can not be extended the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition along with connected application is, therefore, dismissed.