Ompal Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH 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, AAG, Haryana.

.....

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of 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 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, registered at Police Station Sirsa City, Sirsa.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed. Brief allegations are that petitioner was a Senior Administrative Officer in Haryana State Development Corporation as he was posted as Manager, Haryana Seeds Development Corporation, Sirsa. It is a case of siphon off subsidy meant for the farmers and also depriving the farmers from quality wheat seeds by the petitioner and the co-accused.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that though he was Manager in the office and though wheat seeds were dispatched from the store to various sale centres and, however, the entire bungling was done without his knowledge. However, bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that petitioner is the main accused and that this act of cheating at a very large scale could not be possible without Meenu 2014.01.

connivance of the present petitioner-accused. It is contended that subsidized seeds which were meant for the farmers were taken to some other godown for being sold to some other persons than the farmers and hence, subsidy which was meant for farmers was siphon off by the petitioner and the co-accused and hence, his custodial interrogation is necessary to arrive at the truth and to find out as to in how many such cases petitioner is involved. It is also contended that there are also some forged receipts which are to be recovered and for that purpose as well custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary.

The present FIR was got lodged pursuant to the enquiry conducted by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa as per order of Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa. There are very serious allegations against the petitioner -accused. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to him. Rather his Custodial interrogation is necessary.

In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Om Pal Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 31.12.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Meenu 2014.01.03 13:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh