In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 16489 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on July 21,2009. Avtar Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent. Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, 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. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had filed an 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 when the petitioner was Sarpanch of village Sarwarpur, he used to identify the application forms of the parents of the girls belonging to Scheduled Castes families for getting financial help from the State Government under the Punjab Government Ashirvad Scheme/Shagun Scheme. The State Government through the Tehsil Welfare Officer used to pay Rs.15,000/- to the parents/guardians of the girls belonging to Scheduled Castes as financial CRM M 16489 of 2009 (O&M) -2- help for solemnization of the marriages of their daughters. It is further submitted that the petitioner had only identified the applicants who submitted their application forms for seeking financial assistance. He further submits that the petitioner had no nexus with Gian Kaur or Jaswinder Singh alias Kala. Learned counsel for the State, however, submits that the petitioner being the Sarpanch of the village was supposed to identify those girls whose marriages were to be solemnized, but he identified the cases of those girls who were already married and in this manner, he (petitioner) was hand-in-glove with the other co-accused in order to earn some money by causing loss to the State Exchequer. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find it to be an exceptional case for the purpose of granting concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is hereby dismissed. July 21,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge