Crl. Misc. No. M-36022 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36022 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 15.12.2010 Bala Kaur ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 65338 of 2010 This is an application for placing on record additional affidavit of the petitioner. Application is allowed and additional affidavit of the petitioner is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. M-36022 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Bala Kaur in case FIR No. 110 dated 6.10.2010 registered under Sections 409/120-B IPC read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to party faction in the village, whereas, it was the duty of Panchayat Secretary to maintain the record. Moreover, if any amount was due towards the petitioner, the same could be Crl. Misc. No. M-36022 of 2010 (O&M) (2) recovered under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on record. As per allegations in the FIR, petitioner was appointed as Sarpanch in the year 2008 and the Gram Panchayat had given village pond on lease for fishing and breeding fishery for the period w.e.f. 31.7.2008 to 11.8.2009 for a sum of Rs.16,000/- to a contractor, namely, Mithu Khan. The said contractor had given an amount of Rs.16,000/- in cash to the petitioner and had also obtained receipt in form No.4, which bears her signatures. The petitioner received the abovesaid amount but neither the amount was deposited in the bank account of Gram Panchayat nor any entry was made in the record. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to prove the case of the petitioner by way of filling her affidavit, which is contrary to the allegations, as the receipt of the alleged amount was received by the said contractor, whereas, in the affidavit, it has been mentioned by the petitioner that she never received any cash amount. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any other document to prove that the alleged amount was received by the Panchayat Secretary. There was separate account of the Gram Panchayat, where, the amount was to be deposited but the same was not deposited. The concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner as no special case has been made out by counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 Cr.P.C. as well. In addition to the limitations imposed in Crl. Misc. No. M-36022 of 2010 (O&M) (3) Section 437 Cr.P.C., the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. In view of the facts mentioned above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner can surrender before the trial Court and in case she surrenders and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be decided by the trial Court on the same day in accordance with law. December 15, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No