CRM No.M-15595 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Surinder Kaur widow of Jagdish Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and CBI ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Surinder Kaur widow of Jagdish Singh, has instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against her, by virtue of FIR No.1 dated 1.1.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 13 (1) (C) (D) and 13 (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. As is evident from the record that during the pendency of the case, the Special Judge passed the order dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure P2), the operative part of which is as under:- “The exchequer has been defrauded of Rs.2,50,01,555/- and this was not possible single handedly. There appears the involvement of different officials of the office of District Goniana Mandi, HDFC Bank, branch CRM No.M-15595 of 2010 2 Bathinda as also the DDOs posted in Government Sr.Secondary School (Girls), Goniana Mandi. The matter could not be taken to its logical end by simply challaning the accused Surinder Kaur, the Clerk posted in Government Sr.Secondary School (Girls), Goniana, simply because she had forged the signatures of the DDOs at different level. The matter cannot be disposed of by simply ascribing the negligence to the concerned officials in the matter of the passing of the bills and issuance of the cheques. The Investigating officer has to find out the complicity of the concerned officials/officers, who committed the lapse in discharging his/their duty under the rules because it is not a single instance of the fraud and rather the transaction is covered by 29 bills/cheques ranging a period of two years. Therefore, the matter has got to be investigated further and a report has to be called under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the investigation concerning the aforesaid points is carried out.” 5. Apart from it, what is not disputed here is that the petitioner was arrested on 31.3.2010 in the present case and since then she remained in judicial custody till she was allowed interim bail on 17.9.2010. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 17.9.2010. It is not a matter of dispute that in pursuance of the said order, she has already submitted her bail and surety bonds, which were accepted by the Special Judge. In this view of the matter, to me, no useful purpose would be served in again sending her to jail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. As the Special Judge ordered the further investigation, therefore, conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the interim order granting bail to the petitioner, vide order dated 17.9.2010 is hereby made absolute. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge