Criminal Misc. No. M-27066 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-27066 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:05.09.2009 Ravinder Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Ravinder Kumar, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Rewli under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking his anticipatory bail in case FIR No.203 dated 9.9.2008 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat. The facts in brief are that on inquiry, it was found that the Sarpanch (referring to the petitioner) had deposited Rs.1,68,67,206/- with United Bank of India in Account No.1466010004336 on 28.3.2008. The said amount has not been shown in the column of income in cash book from which it is not known that compensation amount has been received by the Gram Panchayat. Ravinder Kumar Sarpanch had made the signatures of Shri Pardeep Kumar, Gram Sachiv on the bank account opening form, on which there is identification of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sonepat but the signatures on the seal of BDPO are not in fact of BDPO, Criminal Misc. No. M-27066 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Sonepat and he forged the signatures of Gram Sachiv and BDPO at the time of opening of the said account. Sarpanch (referring to the petitioner) has withdrawn Rs.1,66,00,000/- from the bank without permission of the Deputy Commissioner and grabbed the said amount. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not grabbed a single penny from the funds of the Gram Panchayat nor he forged any signatures of any official as alleged and he has done all the proceedings as per law. The amount has been spent for the development and in the interest of the village. The account opening forms bear genuine signatures of the officers. With regard to identical allegation, the Deputy Commissioner has also suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. The suspension order has been set aside by the Financial Commissioner. There is a specific Section 53 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 with regards to the liability of Sarpanch. That upto date, no proceedings under the said Section have been initiated against the petitioner. Meaning thereby, no liability has been assessed with regards to the misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds or property belonging to the Gram Panchayat. To tide over these submissions, the learned State Counsel maintained that the petitioner by forging the signatures of BDPO withdrew the amount of Rs.25 lacs on 21.4.2008 vide cheque No.426541, Rs.30 lacs on 2.5.2008 vide cheque No.426542, Rs.20 lacs on 23.5.2008 vide cheque No.426543, Rs.10 lacs on 24.5.2008 vide cheque No.426544, Rs.25 lacs on 12.6.2008 vide cheque No.426546, Rs.25 lacs on 17.7.2008 vide cheque No.426547, Rs.6 lacs on 21.7.2008 vide cheque No.426548 and Rs.25 lacs Criminal Misc. No. M-27066 of 2008 (O&M) -3- on 5.8.2008 vide cheque No.426549 and it has been affirmed by the Forensic Science Laboratory's report that these cheques do not bear the signatures of the BDPO rather the same have been forged by the petitioner. Thus, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. He further pressed into service that Luxmi Devi Inspector/ Investigator had filed the affidavit to the effect that the petitioner has threatened her that if she harassed him, he will commit suicide. I have well considered the rival contentions. Of course, vide order dated 20.10.2008, the petitioner was admitted to ad-interim anticipatory bail by this Court but as per law, there is no bar to decline the anticipatory bail application if subsequently no case is made out for grant of such relief. Needless to say, the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution had withdrawn huge amount by forging the signatures of the competent authorities from the bank. The Forensic Science Laboratory's report also goes against the petitioner. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order Criminal Misc. No. M-27066 of 2008 (O&M) -4- during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” The provisions of Section 438 ibid cannot be invoked where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. A Court considering an application under this Section must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duties and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Taking into consideration the cumulative facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it a fit case to admit anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Sequelly, this petition is dismissed. September 05, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE