Bhupinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-10927 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 11, 2019 Bhupinder Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.143 dated 14.12.2018 under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC, registered at Police Station Subhanpur, District Kapurthala.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of letter sent by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala. It is stated in the letter that FIR be got registered against Piara Singh, Ex-Sarpancha and Bhupiner Singh, Panchayat Secretary (present petitioner) for embezzling funds of Gram Panchayat Dograwal. As per the FIR, BDPO Dhilwan, Ex-Sarpanch, Bhupinder Singh, Panchayat Secretary, VINEET GULATI 2019.03.18 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Mohan Lal J.E. and administrator were directed to come present and

CRM No.M-10927 of 2019 -2simultaneously, Ms.Tara Kakkar, the then BDPO was also directed to come present. On 08.10.2018, Mohan Lal, J.E., Block Dhilwan, came present and produced assessment report. Except him, nobody came present. Assessment report is reproduced in the FIR. As per measurements being carried out by J.E., a sum of `18,62,179/- has been spent less by Gram Panchayat, Dograwal. The details have been mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that aforesaid Ex-Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary have embezzled the amount and they have played fraud upon the Government by withdrawing excess amount.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstance of the present case and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of Panchayat funds, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to him.

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

March 11, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.03.18 10:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh