Crl.M.No.M-26202 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-26202 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 10, 2010 Bhupinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.46737 of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-26202 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.60, dated 3.6.2010, under Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C.Act, registered at Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against the petitioner-accused are that notification was issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Social Security, laying down a scheme for disbursing old age pension to eligible persons residing in the village. Petitioner being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was the Disbursing Authority under the scheme. It was the duty of petitioner-accused to have returned the amount of pension of those persons, who already expired. A committee was constituted for disbursing the pension, headed by present petitioner-accused and the pension was to be disbursed as per recommendation of the said Committee. However, petitioner-accused forged thumb impression against names of 20 persons, who had already died and hence amount of Rs.26,250/- of the alleged Crl.M.No.M-26202 of 2010 (O&M) -2- pension has been misappropriated. Pension list was verified by the present petitioner-accused. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged embezzled amount has since been deposited. Even if it is so, it shows that petitioner-accused being Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat was involved in this forgery and embezzlement of pension amount meant for old persons. Pension amount was being credited in the account of Sarpanch and it was his duty to disburse the same to eligible persons. There are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Rather his custodial interrogation is necessary. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Bhupinder Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge