ORDER : 1. The petitioner in the instant application seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in FIR No. 0010/2024 dated 07.02.2024 registered with Police Station, Pouni, District Reasi for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Facts emanating from the record would reveal that the Branch Manager of J&K Bank Branch Pouni District Reasi filed a written application in Police Station Pouni District Reasi addressed to the respondent 2 herein requesting for registration of an FIR against the petitioner herein being Assistant Manager (under suspension) Code-013698 on the premise that during a surprise visit by the Vigilance Officer of the Bank on 22.11.2023 in Branch Pouni, unauthorized debit entries from the deceased/inactive/unclaimed accounts were found and upon in depth investigation, it was observed that the petitioner herein while working as Assistant Manager in the Branch Pouni have had made fraudulent debits in various deceased, unclaimed and inactive accounts existing in the said branch and transferred the credit proceeds in his own account No. 0612020990013698 (Employees’ CC Limit) and in Account No. 0544040100005912 of his wife, namely, Mrs. Satvinder Kour either directly or routed through Account No. 0845040100001476 of one Sher Mohd. and Account No. 0672040900006831 of one Narinder Kumar and some other accounts with total surfaced amount of Rs. 126.34 lacs, having withdrawn the said amount for his personal gains causing wrongful loss to the bank and its customers thereby having committed various offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. 3. Consequent upon the submission of the aforesaid application filed by the Branch Manager, FIR (supra) came to be registered and investigation entrusted to PSI Jasbir Singh No. 196716/EXJ. 4. The petitioner herein prior to the filing of the instant bail application have had filed similar application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi wherein initially an interim bail was granted on 09.02.2024, however, subsequently upon consideration of the said application along with the police report, the CD file as well as objections filed to the application by the prosecution dismissed the same on 20.02.2024 whereafter the petitioner preferred the instant application for grant of bail in anticipation of his arrest. 5. 5. Objections to the application have been filed by the respondents wherein the application is being resisted and opposed, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has committed a grave offence and, thus, is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Before adverting to the prayer made in the application as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail in anticipation of his arrest, it becomes imperative in the first instance to refer to law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject of bail/anticipatory bail and issues connected thereto. 7. The Apex Court in case titled as “Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr” reported in 2018 (12) SCC 129 has held as under: “15. As held in Puran case, while considering the question of grant of bail, Court should avoid consideration of details of the evidence as it is not a relevant consideration. While it is necessary to consider the prima facie case, an exhaustive exploration of the merits of the case should be avoided. We, therefore, consciously refrain from considering the merits of the materials/evidence collected by the prosecution.” 8. Further the Apex court in case titled as “Sushila Aggarwal and ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another” reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 at para 92.4 held as under: “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether, and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.” 9. While considering the ambit and scope of the grant of anticipatory bail, the Apex Court in case titled as “Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Antia Agarwal & ors” reported in (2021) 15 SCC 777 in para 21 while referring to the judgment passed in case titled as “Pokar Ram Vs. While considering the ambit and scope of the grant of anticipatory bail, the Apex Court in case titled as “Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Antia Agarwal & ors” reported in (2021) 15 SCC 777 in para 21 while referring to the judgment passed in case titled as “Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1985) 2 SCC 597 has observed and held as under: “21…………A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that 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. It was observed that ‘it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by malafides; and, equally that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond’. Some of the relevant considerations while govern the discretion, noticed therein are ‘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’. A caution was voiced that ‘in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it.” 10. Admittedly the petitioner has been prima facie found to be involved in the commission of the alleged offence under Section 409 IPC while working as Assistant Manager in J&K Bank Branch Pouni District Reasi, which bank indisputably holds public money in trust for the public. 11. Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent etc etc and as a rule the duties of such persons are of a highly confidential character, involving great powers of control over the property entrusted to them and a breach of trust by such persons may often induce serious public and private calamity. 12. Having regard to the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments (supra) inasmuch as the facts and circumstances of the case including the record available on the file, prima facie there is a material on record connecting the petitioner herein with the commission of the alleged offence, which cannot be overlooked or ignored by this Court while dealing with the instant application and a general contention of the petitioner that the case foisted against him is false, frivolous and vexatious cannot per se discredit the case set up against the petitioner by the respondents herein. The role of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence in the facts and circumstances is required to be left open to be investigated by the investigating agency which is required to be given a free hand to investigate the case from all angles. 13. It is significant to mention here that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provide for discretion for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest is an extraordinary power vested in this Court and has to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely otherwise to misuse his liberty. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail in anticipation of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code at this stage. 15. Resultantly, the petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed. 16. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail in anticipation of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code at this stage. 15. Resultantly, the petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed. 16. It is made clear that nothing hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of any opinion about the guilt or innocence of the petitioner herein.