Mukesh Chand v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-29879 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 18, 2018 Mukesh Chand

...Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Vivek Singla, 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.16 dated 28.03.2018 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(1) (c), 13

(1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Shahpurkandi, Pathankot.

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

From the record, I find that as per allegations in the FIR, petitioner Mukesh Chand, Divisional Accountant deposited the amount in wrong accounts after making changes in the bank accounts. He made payments of fake employees posted at Ranjit Sagar Dam, on their names, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and on bank account opening forms, by putting Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh his own photograph and he himself operated the same and sent the amounts

CRM No.M-29879 of 2018 -2in the opened accounts. Original bill has already been sent by the Treasury Office to Accountant General, Punjab and its office copy, to which, Mukesh Chand was himself Incharge and he misplaced the same. The sanctions of 32 employees were received by the office for payments to be sent in 32 accounts but Mukesh Chand, by making changes in four bank accounts, got credited the payment in account opened in different banks. As per the allegations, present petitioner has forged documents and committed a big fraud.

Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner and without discussing the facts of the case in minute details and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.

July 18, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Vineet Gulati 2018.07.23 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh