Jatinder Singh Dhillon v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-49093 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 13, 2018 Jatinder Singh Dhillon

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Abhinav Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Abhaypal Singh Gill, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.6 dated 07.06.2018 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-I, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Mohali. Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. As per prosecution version, Resham Singh, Chairman, VINEET GULATI 2018.11.16 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh Panchayat Samiti Kharar and present petitioner Jatinder Singh Dhillon,

CRM No.M-49093 of 2018 -2BDPO-cum-Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti Kharar, connived with firm M/s J.R. Printing Press, Nabha Gate, Sangrur for purchase of stationary, paste file, panchayat inspection proformas, proceedings register, cash book, stock register, muster roll and patta name registers etc. and issued cheque of `3,44,000/- on 27.06.2016 and then `5,50,000/-, which are stated to be issued, after getting sanction etc. and three other cheques for `10,25,271, `11,59,200/- and `16,81,550/- were also issued under the signatures of present petitioner. As per the allegations, Rules have not been complied with. The quotations were taken from the persons who are interrelated with M/s J.R. Printing Press and further no such articles were shown by the Panchayat Samiti. There is no entry of any type in the record.

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

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

November 13, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.11.16 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh