Crl. Misc. No. M-35202 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-35202 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.12.2010 Rajesh Kumar ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 62544 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-35202 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Rajesh Kumar in case FIR No. 299 dated 13.10.2010 registered under Sections 409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC at Police Station Kundli, District Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Panchayat is an autonomous body and is at liberty to open any account and spend the amount even inspite of passing legal or illegal resolutions. In this case, the amount was paid to different persons by way of cheques and the petitioner was not involved in any manner. Learned counsel further contends that only the Sarpanch was having the record of the Panchayat and the present petitioner being Gram Sachiv is not responsible and has no role either in spending of the amount or embezzlement. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the contents of the FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-35202 of 2010 (O&M) (2) As per allegations in the FIR, an amount of Rs.29,88,205/- was deposited in the account opened by the Sarpanch of the village and the Gram Sachiv i.e. the present petitioner, whereas, as per instructions issued by the department, the amount was to be kept in fixed deposit. There is allegation in the FIR that the record of Panchayat has been destroyed and no record of the work was produced by the Sarpanch/Gram Sachiv. The village Sarpanch produced a copy of the FIR regarding burning of the record of the work on account of a fire in her car. Moreover, Sarpanch against whom similar type of allegations are there also approached this Court by way of filing Crl. Misc. No. M-31739 of 2010, which was dismissed by this Court on 28.10.2010. In view of the conduct of the petitioner that he has embezzled the Panchayat amount, does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. 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 Section 437 Cr.P.C., the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Since the petitioner has actively participated in the alleged occurrence, concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. December 03, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-35202 of 2010 (O&M) (3) Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No