IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-4059 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: 02.03.2010. Prashan Singh. ...... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab. ...... RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. *** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed by Prashan Singh for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in FIR No.15 dated 15.01.2010 under Sections 406/420 IPC registered at P.S. Jagraon, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It has been argued by ld. counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that, in fact, entire alleged excess material was used by him in development work of the village and nothing has been embezzled and that wheat was also distributed amongst the villagers as per the Proceeding Book maintained by the petitioner and that he is ready to join the investigation. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by ld. counsel for Crl.Misc.No.M-4059 of 2010 the State on the plea that petitioner being Sarpanch of the village, was responsible to supervise the development work alongwith other officials and to account for materials used in the development work and also account for the distribution of the wheat, which was entrusted to him as Sarpanch and that however, as per the inquiry held, it was found that the materials used in the development work was shown in excess, value of which comes to Rs.1,42,843/- and that wheat weighing 1180 Kg. valuing Rs.5900/- also could not be shown by the petitioner to have been distributed amongst the villagers as per the record. It is further contended that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner by Block Development and Panchayat Officer in pursuance of the inquiry held. Hence, it is contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. I have considered all the facts of the case. The present FIR has been lodged on the complaint of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Jagaraon in pursuance of the inquiry held against the petitioner, who was Sarpanch of the village. As per allegation, he has caused loss to the Panchayat to the extent of Rs.1,42,843/- and also embezzled 1180 Kg. of wheat entrusted to him. Hence, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I am of the view that it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused. There is no merit in the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Prashan Singh and hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 2, 2010. JUDGE 'om' 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-4059 of 2010 3