High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 P&H CK 0421

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raj Mohan Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7, 13(1)(a), 13(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 40929 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 371 words

Raj Mohan Singh, J

The case has been taken up for hearing through video-conferencing.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 15 dated 23.10.2020 under Sections 7, 13 (1)

(a) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station

Vigilance Bureau District Bathinda.

Arvinder Kaur was appointed as Clerk on compassionate ground after the demise of her husband, who was working as Assistant Manager in the

bank. The occurrence took place in the year 2013 for which enquiry was conducted in the year 2017. FIR came to be registered only on 23.10.2020

for the offences in question. No objection was raised at any point of time either on 09.11.2013 or thereafter. Petitioner is the manager of the bank. He

was arrested on 23.10.2020. Challan has been presented. Charges have not been framed so far.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the amount has been duly credited in the loan account of Makhan Singh and receipts were duly

issued. Minor cutting in Receipt No.099304 dated 09.11.2013 cannot be read to exaggerate the situation as the words written are only in the context of

Rs.80,000/- and the alleged cutting in place of figure 1,00,000/- cannot be read in isolation.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner being

a public servant was not expected to indulge in the aforesaid act of misappropriation.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the challan has already been presented and trial may take some

time in its culmination and also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 23.10.2020, It would be just and appropriate to grant regular bail to the

petitioner.

In view of above, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds

to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.