Sanjay Kumar v. State Of U.T., Chandigarh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-52515 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2018 Sanjay Kumar

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of U.T. Chandigarh

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Sunil K. Nehra, 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.303 dated 05.10.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B IPC, Sections 7, 13(1) CD and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 68 of the IT Act, registered at Police Station Industrial Area, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of letter sent by General Manager, Haryana State Roadways, in which it is stated that for the payments of the bills of Central Workshop, Karnal and Haryana Engineering Corporation, Gurgaon, semiofficial letter and letters were received in the office, in which, a request was VINEET GULATI 2018.11.30 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh made repeatedly about the payment of the bills in lieu of the goods which

CRM No.M-52515 of 2018 -2was given to those offices, as there was lot of delay in payment of those bills. When the matter was got enquired through a Committee, it was found that Sanjay Kumar, present petitioner, instead of making payment to concerned office, had made the payment in the account of some other firm by making manipulations in the bills. On checking of other bills, it was found that other multiple amounts of about `1,09,03,419/- were paid in the account of two separate fake firms, which have no concern with the office. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of huge amount, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out grant of anticipatory bail to him. Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

November 29, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2018.11.30 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh