Sarpanch accused of embezzlement granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.: High Court of Punjab and Haryana

 on 25 09 CRM M 14780 2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH CRM M 14780 2021 Date of Decision: 24.09.2021Ranjha Singh ....Petitioner(s)VersusState of Punjab .....Respondent(s)CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURIPresent:Mr. Parampreet Singh Brar Advocate for the petitioner.Mr. Randhir Singh Thind DAG Punjab. Through Video ConferencingJASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.110 dated 23.11.2018under Sections 420 406 409 and 120 B IPC registered at Police StationSadar Kotkapura District Faridkot. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is in custody since 25.11.2020 which is more than 10 months. Hehas further submitted that the investigation of the case is already completeand the challan has been presented on 22.02.2021 and thereafter chargeshave been framed on 02.08.2021. He submitted that it is a case where thepetitioner was a Sarpanch of a village and the primary allegations with on 25 09 CRM M 14780 2021 2 regard to the non measurement of the land and allegations of someembezzlement has been made against the Panchayat Secretary who wassupposed to provide the utilization certificate regarding the grant and he wasthe Panchayat Secretary of the two villages. He submitted that the entirerecord and the duty to measure and to provide the utilization certificatevested with the Panchayat Secretary and the petitioner being an illiterateSarpanch had no role to play. He submitted that even otherwise also there isonly an allegation of embezzlement of money but there is no settlement ofany liability into that extent by administrative authority. He submitted thathe is facing incarceration and the investigation of the case has already beencompleted and no useful purpose will be served in case the petitioner is keptin custody as the entire case is based upon the record which is already withthe police. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is 73 yearsof old man. He further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in anyother case and therefore he may be considered for grant of regular bail. On the other hand Mr. Randhir Singh Thind learned DAG Punjab has stated that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody since25.11.2020 and investigation of the case is complete and after presentationof challan the charges have been framed and the entire case is dependedupon the documentary evidence. He has however opposed the grant ofregular bail on the ground that the matter pertains to embezzlement and therefore the petitioner may not be granted bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The custody of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not indispute that the investigation of the case is complete and the charges have on 25 09 CRM M 14780 2021 3 already been framed and the subject matter of the dispute pertains to therecord which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is with thepolice. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner thattill date even no administrative authority has ascertained any amount ofembezzlement if any committed by the accused persons. He submitted thatthese are allegations which are to be adjudicated at the time of trial andsince the trial of the case would take long time the submissions made by thecounsel for the petitioner carries weight. Furthermore the petitioner is 73years old man and there is no other case against the petitioner. Furthermoreit is not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bailthen he may influence any witness or may tamper evidence or may flee fromjustice.Therefore without commenting on the merit of the case andconsidering the totality of circumstance the present petition is allowed. Thepetitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bailbonds surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court Duty Magistrateconcerned.However anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated asan expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purposeof deciding the present petition only. 24.09.2021(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)rakesh JUDGEWhether speaking:Yes NoWhether reportable:Yes No 

Summary: The petitioner was arrested on the 23rd November 2018 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, “Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property”, Section 406, “Punishment for criminal breach of trust”, Section 409, “Criminal breach of trust by a public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent” and 120-B IPC, “Punishment of criminal conspiracy whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, or rigorous imprisonment shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.” FIR No.110 was registered at Police Station Sadar Kotkapura, District Faridkot. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 1973, “Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.” In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Jaswant Singh Puri on the 24th of September 2021 in the case of Ranjha Singh Versus the state of Punjab [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION -14780-2021] Mr Parampreet Singh Brar represented as the advocate for the petitioner, and Mr Randhir Singh Thind represented the State of Punjab the proceedings of the court were held via video conference. The case relates to the facts, wherein the petitioner was a Sarpanch of a village and was accused regarding non-measurement of the land, there were also allegations against the petitioner of some embezzlement (theft or misappropriation of funds placed in one’s trust or belonging to one’s employer) against the Panchayat Secretary of two villages. The counsel representing the petitioner held that the petitioner has been under custody for more than ten months and even the investigation of the case is complete and a challan for the same has been presented. Further, the counsel held that concerning the accusation of non-measurement of the land, that it was the duty of the Panchayat Secretary to measure as well as provide a utilization certificate. Whereas the petitioner who was only a Sarpanch and an illiterate cannot be held accountable for this incident.  Concerning the accusation of embezzlement of money, the counsel held that there is no settlement of any liability to that extent by the administrative authority. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner is still facing incarceration even after the investigation of the case is complete. It is unreasonable that the petitioner is kept in custody as the entire case is based upon the record which is currently with the police. The petitioner is 73 years old and he has not been involved in any other case as well and therefore must be considered for bail. The counsel representing the State of Punjab held that it is not controverted that the petitioner has been held in custody for ten months and the investigation of the case is complete and even the challan has been presented. However, the counsel objects to granting bail to the petitioner on the ground that the matter pertains to embezzlement. The Honourable Court held that the main subject matter is regarding the record which is with the police. The custody of the petitioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the investigation of the case is complete and the charges have already been framed. To date, even no administrative authority has ascertained any amount of embezzlement if any committed by the accused persons. The court further held that these are allegations will be dealt with at the time of trial and since the trial of the case would take a long time, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner carries higher weightage. The Honourable Court concluded that “The petitioner is 73 years old man and has no other criminal antecedent Furthermore it is not the case of the State that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he may influence any witness or may tamper evidence or may flee from justice. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstance, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.” Click here to read the judgment Judgment review – A. Beryl Sugirtham