High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/11729/2018dismissed

Gurinderjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-08-23Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-11729 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 23, 2018 Gurinderjeet Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Amit Kumar Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.24 dated 20.09.2016 under Section 13(1)(d), 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, District Patiala.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared, filed reply, which is taken on record and contested the petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that present petitioner, who was posted as Patwari, has wrongly disbursed the compensation amount to 10 farmers VINEET GULATI 2018.08.27 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-11729 of 2018 -2for the damage of cotton crop by white flies whereas, on enquiry, it was found that those 10 persons/farmers have not even sown the cotton crop but they received the claim in connivance with the petitioner. At the time of arguments, learned State counsel contended that from the investigation, it has been found that present petitioner in other village also has embezzled amount by same modus operandi and caused loss of more than `4 lakhs there and `1.50 lakhs in the present case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to him.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

August 23, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.08.27 14:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh