Single-judge oral order in a criminal matter where the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a Sarpanch accused of embezzling funds from Gram Panchayat land.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed as devoid of merit.
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.
-1-
Crl.M.No.M-13709 of 2012(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-13709 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 10, 2012
Joginder Singh Sarpanch
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.BPS Virk, Advocate for the complainant.
.......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.27913 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-13709 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.46, dated 25.4.2012, under Section 409 IPC read with Sections 13(1)D, 13(1) E of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13-B of Punjab Village Common Land Regulation Act 1961, registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that petitioner is a Sarpanch of Village
-2-
Crl.M.No.M-13709 of 2012(O&M)
Kakra. There was a complaint made by Makhan Singh, one of the members of the Gram Panchayat that petitioner in the capacity of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had sold soil by digging 4-5 feet deep of 6 acres of land, out of 8 acres of cultivable shamlat land. On account of the same, the land had become uneven. There are also allegations that amount realized by him was also embezzled as the same was not deposited in the account of the Panchayat. Complaint was made to Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. As per order of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, enquiry was got conducted by BDPO Samana and it came during enquiry that soil has been dug upto 4-5 feet from the panchayat land, which was sold to one Nishan Singh son of Gurmukh Singh r/o Chaba District Kaithal, Haryana. As per assessment made by Assistant Executive Engineer, cost of the soil come to .11,76,000/-. No amount has been deposited in the account of Gram Panchayat. Even perusal of various affidavits placed on record on behalf of the petitioner, i.e., Annexures P3 to P5, shows that Sher Singh had taken the Panchayat land on tekha for the period from 2009-2010 for a sum of .51,000/-. As per affidavit of Pritam Singh, Annexure P4, who is stated to be related to Makhan Singh, complainant, he had taken the land for the year 2010-11 for a sum of .65,500/- p.a. and however, in the year 2011-12 the same was leased out to Rattan Singh for a sum of .30,900/- only. It shows that the value has been diminished on account of digging of soil of the panchayat land.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
he has been falsely implicated in this case due to political pressure as complainant fought elections of the Sarpanch against the petitioner. It is
Crl.M.No.M-13709 of 2012(O&M)
-3-
also contended that the price had gone down as complainant did not allow anybody to take the land in auction as land was put to auction many times by the petitioner. It is also contended that even as per enquiry report, five acres of land was found even and only one acre was found uneven.
Be that as it may, it came during enquiry that being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, he sold soil of the land of the Gram Panchayat to one Nishan Singh son of Gurmukh Singh and did not deposit the amount realized from it in the Panchayat account and hence he has embezzled the panchayat funds.
Hence, in view of the these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Joginder Singh Sarpanch for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
10.5.2012
meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a Sarpanch accused of embezzling funds from panchayat land.
Whether the petition for anticipatory bail is meritorious given the allegations of corruption.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Joginder Singh
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
