Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/44168/2013 of OMPAL SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 31 December 2013
COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-44168 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013 Om Pal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Girotra,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-44168 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: December 31, 2013
Om Pal Singh
State of Haryana
v.
.....Petitioner
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present:Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocatefor the petitioner.
Mr.Deepak Girotra, AAG, Haryana.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grantof anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.1025, dated 5.12.2013,under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 168 IPC and Section 7 ofEssential Commodities Act, 1955, registered at Police Station Sirsa City,Sirsa.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gonethrough the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed bylearned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which application filed onbehalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations are that petitioner was a Senior AdministrativeOfficer in Haryana State Development Corporation as he was posted asManager, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Sirsa. It is a case ofsiphon off subsidy meant for the farmers and also depriving the farmersfrom quality wheat seeds by the petitioner and the co-accused.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that though he was Manager in the office and though wheat seedswere dispatched from the store to various sale centres and, however, theentire bungling was done without his knowledge.
However, bail application has been vehemently opposed bylearned State counsel on the plea that petitioner is the main accused and thatMeenu2014.01.03 13:42this act of cheating at a very large scale could not be possible withoutI attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this documentchandigarh connivance of the present petitioner-accused. It is contended thatsubsidized seeds which were meant for the farmers were taken to some othergodown for being sold to some other persons than the farmers and hence,subsidy which was meant for farmers was siphon off by the petitioner andthe co-accused and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary to arriveat the truth and to find out as to in how many such cases petitioner isinvolved. It is also contended that there are also some forged receipts whichare to be recovered and for that purpose as well custodial interrogation ofthe petitioner-accused is necessary.
The present FIR was got lodged pursuant to the enquiryconducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa as per order ofDeputy Commissioner, Sirsa. There are very serious allegations against thepetitioner -accused. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary reliefof anticipatory bail should be granted to him. Rather his Custodialinterrogation is necessary.
In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion onthe merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Om Pal Singhfor grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
31.12.2013
meenu
(Ram Chand Gupta)Judge