Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/33433/2026 of MAHENDER SINGH Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 9 July 2026
of 2026 (O&M) 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner worked in the office of Municipal Council, Jakhal Mandi, as Accountant. Disputed cheque was encashed by the bank after due verification. It also had the signature of Parveen. There was no expert opinion obtained
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.
REEMA SAINI 2026.07.09 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
2 CRM-M-33433 of 2026 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner worked in the office of Municipal Council, Jakhal Mandi, as Accountant. Disputed cheque was encashed by the bank after due verification. It also had the signature of Parveen. There was no expert opinion obtained regarding forgery of the cheque. Learned counsel further submits that the amount of Rs. 27,63,344/- had been deposited back and petitioner had nothing to do with Sandeep. Petitioner, who was ready and willing to join investigation, thus, deserved to be released on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground of grave nature of allegations. He, on instructions from ASI Raghubir Singh, submits that petitioner had written a letter to Municipal Council confessing his guilt stating that he misused the amount due to family reasons. Custodial interrogation of petitioner was required to get his signatures compared and for just and proper investigation. Therefore, the prayer for anticipatory bail be declined.
5. Allegations against the petitioner are specific, serious and grave. His custodial interrogation would be necessitated for just, fair and proper investigation. In view of nature and substance of allegations regarding embezzlement of public funds, no exceptional grounds are made out to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail.
6. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. 09.07.2026 (SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL) reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes JUDGE Whether reportable : No
REEMA SAINI 2026.07.09 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh