Nisha Devi v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH (i) CRM No.M-27496 of 2019 (O&M) Smt.Nisha Devi
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
(ii) CRM No.M-38400 of 2018 (O&M) Ravi Kamboj
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
Date of Decision: July 04, 2019
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present:
Mr.Krishan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Chetan Sharma, AAG, Haryana for the respondent-State.
Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the complainant.
**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Both the above-mentioned cases are taken up together as these have arisen from same FIR.
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. VINEET GULATI 2019.07.16 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-27496 of 2019 and connected petition -2for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.101 dated 24.07.2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Buria, District Yamuna Nagar.
Notice of motion were issued. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant appeared and contested the petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record. The FIR in the present case has been got registered by Block Development and Panchayat Officer on the allegations that Smt.Nisha Devi, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, in connivance with her husband Ravi Kamboj, has withdrawn huge amount of `53,46,755/- from the fund of Gram Panchayat by forging signatures of Gram Sachiv. There is allegation that signatures of Ravi Kamboj are there on the cheque showing that he has received the payment of cheque. The signatures of Gram Sachiv have been found to be forged during investigation.
All these facts show active participation of both the petitioners in commission of the offence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the nature and gravity of the offence, I find that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to them.
Therefore, finding on merit in both the petitions, the same are dismissed.
July 04, 2019 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VINEET GULATI 2019.07.16 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh