Dismissed

Prem Lata v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2010CRM-M/23888/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to serious allegations of misappropriating NREGA funds while serving as Sarpanch, as anticipatory bail was not warranted in such cases of organized criminal conspiracy and large financial fraud.

What did the court decide?

Petition for grant of anticipatory bail dismissed as devoid of merit; custodial interrogation deemed necessary.

Prem Lata Vs State of Punjab — Money Laundering | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M-23888 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-23888 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 18, 2010

Prem Lata

.....Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38, dated 22.7.2010, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 472, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Kambo, District Amritsar.

¶14

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

¶15

Allegations against the petitioner-accused are that when she was Sarpanch of Village Gram Panchayat, she, in connivance with coaccused, i.e., Kuldip Singh, Panchayat Secretary, and her husband, misappropriated the grants given by the State to the Panchayat under NREGA scheme. It came during investigation that she had prepared double Muster Roll Registers for single day and the amount had been shown to have been paid to Mukhtiar Singh and Dial Singh twice in a single day. It also came during investigation that she had withdrawn Rs.40,000/- and another Rs.30,000/- on 10.3.2008 and Rs.30,000/- and another Rs.20,000/on 28.4.2008, whereas as per Rules, she can withdraw only Rs.10,000/-. Hence, there are allegations that she had embezzled the grant received by her as Sarpanch of village Gram Panchayat under NREGA scheme, meant for unemployed youths.

¶16

Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which

¶17

-2-

¶18

Crl.M.No.M-23888 of 2010 (O&M)

¶19

extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused. Rather, her custodial interrogation is necessary. Anticipatory bail was granted to the husband of the petitioner, as he was not the Sarpanch during the said period.

¶20

Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitionerPrem Lata for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 18.8.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge

Prem Lata v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Lata v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs Assistant Commissioner (a.S.) Customs

Ranbir Singh Rathee and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Barjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Avtar Singh @ Raju Vs State of Punjab

Umar Vs State of Haryana

Sneh Lata Vs State of Punjab and Ors.