Partly allowed

Sukhpal Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Nov 2011CRM-M/16700/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench order granted pre-arrest bail to a lady Head Constable accused of embezzling funds but dismissed the bail petition filed by her husband, finding him to be a beneficiary of the embezzled amount and possessing knowledge of the deposits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner No.1 granted pre-arrest bail subject to joining investigation and not tampering with evidence; Petitioner No.2's petition dismissed.

Sukhpal Kaur and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-16700 of 2011

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

Crl. Misc. No. M-16700 of 2011

¶6

Date of Decision: November 9, 2011

¶7

Sukhpal Kaur and another

…..Petitioners

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶18

Petitioner No.1 is a lady Head Constable. She has embezzled misc. funds and Welfare funds in connivance with her husband petitioner No.2 while working as a Bill Clerk in the office of the SSP, Ferozepur.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 was earlier also involved in a similar case i.e. FIR No. 59 of 2010 at Police Station Ferozepur Cantt on similar allegations. She remained in police

¶20

Crl. Misc. No. M-16700 of 2011

¶21

[2]

¶22

custody for 7 days and in judicial custody for 40 days. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned he had been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in the earlier case. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the present case there is absolutely no allegation against petitioner No.2 and he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶23

I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the police file. A perusal of the police file indicates that here are credit entries on the basis of certain cheques which were prepared by petitioner No.1 and were deposited in the account of petitioner No.2 It will be debatable whether the allegations in the present FIR coincide with FIR No.59 of 2010 and whether on the basis of fresh similar material petitioner No.1 could be again arrested.

¶24

In the above circumstances, petitioner No.1 can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶25

Petition qua petitioner No.1 is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of petitioner No.1 she will be ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that the petitioner will join investigation as and when required by the police and that she will not tamper with the evidence or hamper the investigation in any manner.

¶26

Petitioner No.2 is patently a beneficiary of the embezzled amount. He being a police official alongwith his wife was aware of the money which was being deposited in his account. No extraordinary

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-16700 of 2011

¶28

[3]

¶29

exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.2.

¶30

The petition qua petitioner No.2 is dismissed. It will be open to petitioner No.2 to surrender before the Illaqa Magistrate or the investigating officer and seek the concession of regular bail in accordance with the procedure of law.

¶31

November 9, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDG

Sukhpal Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhpal Kaur and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachihtar Singh Vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Ut Chandigarh

Amarjeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Lachhwant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manpreet Saini Vs State of Haryana

Jasmer Singh Vs State of Punjab