Dharminder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.108+209 CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) Decided on : 20.04.2026 Dharminder Singh ...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...... Respondents CORAM :
*** Present :
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** , J (ORAL) ! "# $% &"" '
( # ! #)* '
+ , '
-( "# +.-/ &" '
! #" " 0( #1 ! 2
3
& # # #
33! ,-# # (# ! ( ( 2
3
1 # ! # !! ! # # 4 !!( !5!! ( !
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 2
# # # Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not embezzled even a single penny but he has become prey at the hands of respondent No.2, who has obtained petitioner's signatures in good faith. Learned counsel 5 # #
# #o recovery is to be effected from the petitioner and his custodial interrogation is not required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Agency and shall fully cooperate with the investigation agency. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed.
4 On the other hand, learned State counsel while referring to the status report already filed, has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail by submitting that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. He contends that the petitioner being the Secretary of the Society had cash amount of Rs.2,04,63,258.13 on 31.03.2025 and cash amount of Rs.7,51,77,207.13 on 31.10.2025 belonging to the Society, despite the fact that the Secretary can keep cash in hand of Rs.20,00,000/- without season and cash amount of Rs.50,00,000/- during season as per resolution. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner prepared forged documents; got issued cheque books in the name of members and after signing some of the cheques got issued the amounts and misappropriated the same.
He himself has shown the return of amount by the members but he did not deposit this amount in the account of the society. In this way, he has misappropriated the funds of the society which is more than Rs.8,00,00,000/-.
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 3 amount of society. He further submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovering the embezzled amount, cheque books of members, record of society as well as unearth the modus operandi of the accused. Thus, he does not deserve any concession from this Court. + Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusing the record !!( !5!! (
(5 !(6#!
₹ "
# ( %# 7 ! !# #
# # #
! !!( ! (8# 5 # !! ( (
# (# 9 . #! ( # /
5 ( !( #! ( #
7 ( !!( # !
!!( # 5 # # !
# (7
! ( 5 # !# ( # ! 5 # ( 9
( 5 ( # !# ! 5 #
!
( #7 ( #
!# ( # ! 9
5!! # ## ( ## ### (5 #
! # ( ( 6 # ( ( # !
# !!( ! (
!
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 4 # # 5 ( !!( # , * (
!# ( ! ( # ! 9 ! ( ( ! ( # ( # ! ./7 (
#2 ( #: !
## : 5 ( !
# # !!( 9 # *
!
( 4 ;! "
!
<
! "#$
%
!
%
&
'
(
'
%
% 4 =!" # ! "P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2019) 9 SCC 24
! ! (
# # # !
# !
!
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 5 (! 8# # # # 7 !5
(
# <6 ))*
!
! + (
, -.
%! !
! /0! #$ 12.
*
,
4 5
6 )$.
! "#$ . ,
, 7
5
8
5
* %9 -
:::::::::
$#;
!
%
;
<
5
8
CRM-M-8194-2026 (O&M) 6
4 > ## (! #! 8 # 5#
! ( # # 5 5 (
!!!5!
7 ( 5
' * #! ( 5 !! 8
#? 5 ( !! #!!
! # ./
## (!
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No @
! <A?