← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15061/2016dismissed

Gagandeep Kaur v. State Of Punjab

2016-07-27Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-15061 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:27.7.2016 Gagandeep Kaur

...Petitioner

v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. Ravish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.300 dated 18.11.2013 registered for the offence under Section 409 IPC at Police Station Phase-I, S.A.S. Nagar, District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali). Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. Varun Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record.

Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-15061 of 2016 [2] From the record, I find that as per the allegations in the FIR Gagandeep Kaur was Assistant Lineman with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `PSPCL') and was deputed to work as Cashier. As per the allegations, she embezzled an amount of more than `11 Lakhs of 217 consumers, which was deposited by them as electricity charges.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per para No.4 in the petition the amount of `11,07,990/- has already been deposited with the PSPCL.

Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of huge amount of the consumers, who had deposited the electricity charges, and in view of the fact that she is required for custodial interrogation and in view of the nature and gravity of offences, I do not find it a fit case where the present petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail.

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

July 27, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh