Crl. Misc. No. M-28259 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-28259 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.10.2010 Harinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 409 & 420 IPC at Police Station Kurali, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, vide FIR No.82 dated 12th June, 2010. Allegation against the petitioner is that while posted as clerk in the Education Department, he withdrew certain amounts from government funds in the name of his wife i.e. Bhupinder Kaur. Consequently, instant FIR under Sections 409 & 420 IPC was registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is a government employee and in the event of his arrest, certain administrative consequences may follow. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Crl. Misc. No. M-28259 of 2010 2 It appears that the petitioner had earlier preferred pre-arrest bail petition i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-23183 of 2010 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to surrender before the investigating officer/ trial court. A direction was, however, given to the trial court to decide regular bail application, if moved by the petitioner, within a week. It appears that instead of surrendering before the investigating officer/trial court, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition before this court without pointing out any change of circumstance. It is inexplicable as to how the second petition for pre- arrest bail is maintainable. Even otherwise a perusal of the FIR shows that allegations against the petitioner are serious. It appears that the petitioner has evaded the process of law for considerable long time. I am thus of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. Thus, while dismissing the present petition, the petitioner is burdened with Rs.5,000/- as costs. The amount be remitted to Punjab Legal Services Authority. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 15.10.2010 'rajpal'