In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.26072 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-13170 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:17.5.2010 Deepak Yadav .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Vipin Yadav, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. No.26072 of 2010: Copy of the FIR (Annexure-P.2) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-13170/2010: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who is presently posted as District Development and Panchayat Officer at Narnaul seeks pre-arrest bail in a case FIR No.17 dated 20.8.2009 registered at Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of statement written and signed by Shri Kurda Ram, Inspector, State Vigilance Cr. Misc. No.26072 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-13170 of 2010 [2] Bureau, Sub Centre, Rewari which was received at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon. The allegations as made in the FIR are that investigation was conducted by Dharam Chand Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon. It was alleged that Hawa Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Baghaut, Block Kanina forged fake muster-rolls in the names of Rakesh Kumar, Randhir Singh, Raj Kumar, Jitender, Mukesh Kumar, Chiman Lal residents of Baghaut under the National Employment Guarantee Scheme and grabbed the amount by showing the same to have been distributed to them. In fact, the said persons had never worked under the aforesaid scheme. The Sarpanch had also shown his family members working in the scheme whereas they never did labour under the said scheme. The elder brother of the said Sarpanch, namely, Babu Lal has retired from Army and is serving at Delhi. He had been shown in the muster-roll to have worked in the scheme. Similarly, the names of Pinki and Krishan are shown in the muster-roll whereas they never worked under the scheme. Ishwar Singh, Lambardar of the village, his wife Santokh and his son Sunil, who is serving as Engineer at Gurgaon, had never worked under the scheme but their fake muster-rolls have been forged. The entire work had been got done by the Sarpanch through J.C.B. machines and tractors and forged muster-rolls had been prepared. It is alleged that Hawa Singh, Sarpanch had spent Rs.8,91,873/- on putting earth on the unmetalled passage from Bad Falsa to Shiv Mandir in June 2006 and on the unmetalled passage from Bahala Rasta to Sehlang Turn in August 2006. There are allegations of embezzlement in the muster-rolls of showing payments of works which had not been done. According to the petitioner, Cr. Misc. No.26072 of 2010 and Cr. Misc. No.M-13170 of 2010 [3] he was Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Kanina for the period from 26.2.2008 till 2.7.2008. During this period no work had been done and work that had been done and is mentioned in the FIR is before the said period. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has allowed the resolution dated 26.4.2008 passed by the Gram Panchayat. In terms of the said resolution it has been resolved by the Gram Panchayat that it was considered by the Gram Panchayat that those who had worked under the Employment Guarantee Scheme were to be paid and in the Panchayat it was resolved that for withdrawing an amount of Rs.1,25,000 the Sarpanch had been authorized. The said resolution had been allowed by the petitioner. He was Block Development and Panchayat Officer. The case is based on documentary evidence only which is to be investigated and gone into. The petitioner is Block Development and Panchayat Officer and merely because he had allowed the resolution of the Gram Panchayat it cannot be said at this stage as to whether he has committed any offence. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall, however, join the investigation as and when called. May 17, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*