A Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail petition. Finding that serious allegations of misappropriation of public funds necessitate custodial interrogation, the court held that no ground was made out for bail and dismissed the petition.
Petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed; no relief granted.
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.
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-47678 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 10, 2018
Sandeep Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.166 dated 11.10.2017 under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B IPC and Sections 13 (1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
From the record, I find that FIR has been registered against the VINEET GULATI present petitioner Sandeep Singh and one Rajvinder Singh, mainly on the 2018.09.11 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-47678 of 2017
-2-
allegations that Sandeep Singh by manipulating salary bills has misappropriated an amount of 1,33,00,000/- and 2.50 lakhs of GP Fund by getting deposited the amount, in his personal account and thereafter, withdrawing the same.
Keeping in view the serious allegations against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of amount of `1,33,00,000/-, getting it deposited in his personal account and then withdrawing the same, I find that petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to him.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is
dismissed.
September 10, 2018 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable
Yes No
VINEET GULATI 2018.09.11 16:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable where serious allegations of misappropriation of public funds exist necessitating custodial interrogation?
Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sandeep Singh
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
