High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/19043/2016dismissed

Bhagat Singh v. State Of Haryana

2016-06-06Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon2 pages

CRM M-19043 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM M-19043 of 2016 Date of decision : 06.06.2016 Bhagat Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Rajat Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Tanushree DAG Haryana.

RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner has preferred this second anticipatory bail petition on the ground that petitioner apprehends his arrest pursuant to FIR No. 178 dated 01.07.2015 registered under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 472, 201, 120-B IPC at police station Purani Subzi Mandi, Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain documents have been annexed with this petition. A perusal of same would show that petitioner is not involved in the crime in any manner. Allegations in the FIR are vague and do not have any basis. Before considering whether notice was required to be issued in this case, a copy of the petition was supplied to State counsel. She submitted that petitioner never joined investigation. It appears that petitioner earlier preferred CRM M-23386 of 2015 before this court. This court finds that accused in connivance with bank officials misappropriate government money to the tune of `2.5 crores. This money was meant to be paid as compensation to the land owners in lieu AJAY KUMAR 2016.06.06 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM M-19043 of 2016 of their land acquired by the government. Accused Bhagat Singh went to the bank alongwith Land Acquisition Officer Jai Dev and his daughter-inlaw who was working in the bank. They got the cheques honored and misappropriated the amount. They also forged and fabricated the record and destroyed the original one. They, thus, misled the department and embezzled the amount. In my considered view, no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Allegations in the FIR are serious. It is also inexplicable how the second petition for the same relief is maintainable as there is no change in the circumstances. On the other hand, earlier petition was dismissed wayback on 24.08.2015 but petitioner has been absconding since then. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed.

June 06, 2016 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE AJAY KUMAR 2016.06.06 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document