High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/28998/2018dismissed

Satbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2018-08-10Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan2 pages

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-28998 of 2018 Date of decision:10.8.2018 Satbir Singh

...Petitioner

State of Haryana

...Respondent

....

Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.

.....

Inderjit Singh, J.

The petitioner has filed this second petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.0150 dated 21.6.2018 registered for the offences under Sections 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 120-B, 204, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC at Police Station Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. Mr. B.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. From the record, I find that the present petitioner is named in HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.08.13 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-28998 of 2018 [2] the FIR and co-accused Ashok Kumar is the main accused. The petitioner was posted as a Postmaster and as per allegations he used to prepare forged passbooks and hand over to the depositors. He had not deposited the money in the Government Department. During investigations, a passbook of Harbans Kaur was recovered. The petitioner had prepared this forged passbook and opened a fictitious Account No.295234, whereas no such account existed in the records of the Post Office. The learned State counsel argued that there is also allegation that during investigation 4-5 other cases have come against the present petitioner.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, I do not find it a fit case where the petitioner is entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.

August 10, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2018.08.13 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh