Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.RAJBALA versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT.RAJBALA v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRM-12734-m-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1230 (28 February 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

CRL. MISC. NO. 12734-M OF 2006

DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2006

SMT.RAJBALA

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA

...RESPONDENT

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
PRESENT: Mr Vikram Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana.

---

ORDER:

Heard.

Offence alleged is under sections 420/120-B IPC.

Counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner was a Sarpanch and on 29.8.2005, a sum of Rs.1,23,414/- was alleged to have been misappropriated by her and she was required to deposit the same, which she had deposited. Thereafter, it was alleged that the petitioner had embezzled more amounts, for which enquiry has been held by Economic Cell of the police department, but no enquiry has been held under the Panchayati Raj Act by the department.

Counsel for the petitioner further submits that without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, arrest of the petitioner is not called for; she is willing to pay any amount that may be determined under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act or may be found due in any other legal proceedings; she is also willing to join investigation and face proceedings in accordance with law.

Without expressing any final opinion on merits, the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of investigation or three months whichever is later during which the petitioner will be free to apply for regular bail to the concerned court in accordance with law.

In the event of arrest, the petitioner will be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer within two weeks from today on the conditions that the petitioner will not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; she will not interfere with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly; she will not leave the country without the previous permission of the court; she will associate with the investigation as and when called by the police and that she will surrender the passport, if any.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

March 09, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

sanjeev JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.