The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the case involved embezzlement of government funds still pending recovery, making it unsuitable for granting bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M 25511 of 2009
1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CRM-M 25511 of 2009 Decided on Sept 11,2009.
Shree Ram -- Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana --Respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Rajesh Sheoran,Advocate, for the petitioner
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.10 dated 16.2.2009, registered under Sections 409/120-B IPC, at Police Station, SVB Hisar, District Hisar.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on the complaint of SVB, Hisar, in which it has been alleged that enquiry has been conducted by Raghubir Singh Inspector, State Vigilance Bureau (E), Bhiwani, against the petitioner (Ex-Sarpanch), who was working as such during the period 2000 to 2005 and spent Rs.35/-lakh on development works of the village, but it was found during enquiry that instead of spending the entire amount, he embezzled an amount of Rs. 10 to 12 lacs. It was also found that during his tenure as
CRM-M 25511 of 2009 2
Sarpanch, he had received Rs.11402/- under C.D.grant for the construction of school and streets; Rs.90500/- for construction of streets under PRI scheme; Rs.2,45,867/- under J.G.G.S.Y/S.G.R.Y scheme and 583 quintals of wheat from account of Development Committee, for the construction of school room, Backward Class Chaupal, boundary wall of the Harjan Chaupal and also shed of cremation ground. Besides the above work, he had got executed the work of filling of earth in school and excavation of the village pond. Technical enquiry of the above said work was got conducted from SDO/SVB Panchkula and the samples of construction material were sent to F.S.L, Madhuban. According to the technical report received, it was found that the petitioner had used 13 bags less cement and 1516 less bricks in construction of village school room and water tank. Besides this, the petitioner in connivance with members, namely Ram Sawroop, Phool Singh, Pawan Kumar, Shish Pal have embezzled Rs.11942/- in the construction work of boundary wall of Harijan Chaupal. The Development Committee had also not deposited the amount of Rs. 15365/- out of Rs.29,700/- in the government treasury on account of non-execution of work of shed of cremation ground. In this way, had embezzled an amount of Rs.27,307/-.
Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani on 18.8.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present FIR has been registered after expiry of the term of the petitioner as Sarpanch. It is also submitted that no recovery has been
CRM-M 25511 of 2009
3
effected from him and the entire case is based upon documentary evidence which is in possession of the police.
I have thoughtfully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in which the petitioner has been indicted after a thorough enquiry for embezzlement of the government funds which are still to be recovered, I do not find it to be fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence this petition is hereby dismissed.
Sept 11,2009 RR
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to a petitioner indicted for embezzlement of government funds where the amount is still to be recovered.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shree Ram
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
