CRM M 16621 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 16621 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2009. Gian Kaur -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat,AAG,Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.12 dated 18.5.2009, under Sections 13 (1) (A) (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 409/120-B IPC, at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. Gian Kaur (petitioner) Tehsil Welfare Officer, Samrala, in collusion with Jaswinder Singh son of Kala, resident of Sarwarpur, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana, got prepared the cases under 'Shagun Scheme' of Punjab Government and committed fraud. It was found during investigation that Gian Kaur (petitioner) and Jaswinder Singh alias Kala received bribe of Rs.5000/- in each case. They sanctioned several cases in village Sarwarpur itself in connivance with Sarpanch Avtar Singh, who verified the bogus claims for the purpose of embezzlement of govt. funds. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed an CRM M 16621 of 2009 (O&M) 2 application for anticipatory bail which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 05.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has unblemished service record of 31 years and is due to retire within one year. It is submitted that she has been framed because of inter-se dispute with Onkar Nath Sharma, Tehsil Welfare Officer, though payment has been made to the concerned person who was entitled under 'Shagun Scheme' after verification by the Sarpanch along-with attestation of the marriage card. It is further submitted that the petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory blanket bail in which Vigilance Bureau has submitted its report dated 19.2.2009 that petitioner is not required in any case, though vigilance enquiry report No.1 is dated 14.2.2008. However, on 18.5.2009 the present case has been registered. It is submitted that no offence is made out under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 nor any offence has been made out under Sections 409/ 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the petitioner had applied for bail on 11.2.2009, but at that time, no FIR was registered against her and also vigilance enquiry report No.1 was not complete, therefore, on 19.2.2009, a statement was made before the Court that no case is pending against the petitioner. The said bail application was dismissed as having become infructuous. It is further submitted by learned State Counsel that allegation against the petitioner is that she in connivance with other co-accused, namely Jaswinder Singh alias Kala and Avtar Singh, Sarpanch had passed bogus claims under 'Shagun Scheme' and before handing over the cheque of Rs.15,000/- to the alleged recepient, a sum of Rs.5000/- was taken in advance towards extraneous CRM M 16621 of 2009 (O&M) 3 consideration. It is further submitted that in order to unearth the large scale bungling by the petitioner along-with other co-accused in which the govt. money has been paid to unscrupulous persons for their own benefit, the custody of the petitioner is required. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting on the merit of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge