Petitioner filed a petition for anticipatory bail alleging corruption. The court, finding the petitioner required for custodial interrogation due to serious allegations of embezzlement and forgery, dismissed the petition.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
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.
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-28490 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 11, 2018
Manjit Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.J.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.67 dated 11.05.2018 under Sections 7, 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420,409 and120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that FIR in the present case has been registered on the application of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. As per the allegations, present petitioner Manjit Singh was Secretary of a society. As per the list of loans, there were 229 members of the society, against whom an amount of 4,08,28,228/- was taken as loan. When the verification of accounts was made, 37 members of the society have said that Vineet Gulati 2018.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this documentloan of 60,62,240/- outstanding against them is correct, whereas, 21 Chandigarh
CRM No.M-28490 of 2018
-2-
members told during verification that they have never taken any loan total amounting to 25,11,013/- from the society. From the above, it is evident that amount has been embezzled by Manjit Singh, Secretary. The official, who compared the accounts, has reported that there are 78 members against whom loan of 1,52,76,121/- is outstanding but on enquiry, their whereabouts could not be found and these persons were not residing in the village. 31 members of the society have deposed that they have obtained less loan but higher loan has been shown in the list of the bank and total amount of these members comes to 68,77,868/-. Further, there is allegation that 62 members against whom loan of 1,01,00,986/- is outstanding told that their passbooks are with the Secretary.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the serious allegations against the present petitioner and also in view of the fact that petitioner has embezzled huge amount and has created forged documents and record etc., I find that he is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made for grant of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on merits of the case.
July 11, 2018 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2018.07.13 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where allegations indicate embezzlement, forgery, and custodial interrogation being required?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manjit Singh
State of Punjab
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
