← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/13432/2025dismissed

Rajan Pathi v. State Of Punjab

2025-04-09Mr. Justice H.S. Grewal2 pages

CRM-M-13432-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-13432-2025 Date of decision : 09.04.2025 RAJAN PATHI ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL

Present:

Mr. I.S.Kooner, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG, Punjab.

*** H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.74 dated 20.04.2022 under Sections 409 IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala. 2.

In compliance of order dated 20.03.2025, learned State counsel has already filed the short reply by way of an affidavit of Satnam Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, City I, District Patiala in the Registry on behalf of respondent-State. As per the reply, while working as recovery officer, the petitioner did not give the details of Rs.57,25,685/-. Similarly, while working in license branch, he had not given the account for Rs.1,17,450/- and in the water supply branch, he did not give accounts for Rs.1,33,114/- and Rs.2,68,136/-. Therefore, he had committed the embezzlement for a total sum of Rs.62,44,385/-. 3.

Learned State counsel submits that being a government emplo9yee and handling cash, he has embezzled all this amount, which has come to a shortfall during audit by DCFA.

SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-13432-2025 4.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the file.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature; he caused loss to the State Exchequer, so custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the petitioner is not entitled for concession of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed.

6.

Anything stated hereinabove shall have no effect on the merits of the case as it is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition. The trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of material available before it. (H.S.GREWAL) JUDGE 09.04.2025.

sonia Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.04.09 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document