Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Embezzlement Of PSPCL Materials Worth Over Rs. 1.15 Crores: Anticipatory Bail Rejected: P&H High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant Judgemnent by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the anticipatory bail plea of Harkanwaljit Singh, involved in the misappropriation of materials from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), was dismissed. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, highlights the stringent approach of the judiciary in cases involving substantial financial irregularities.

The FIR, lodged under Sections 409 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, brought to light the alleged embezzlement of PSPCL materials worth over Rs. 1.15 crores. The court, in its observation, noted that “prima facie, it is the petitioner who is liable for having defalcated material (stock and scrap) from the Central Store, Kotkapura to the extent of approximately Rs.1.15 crores.”

In the detailed judgement, Justice Bedi emphasized the gravity of the offence, stating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the recovery of misappropriated property and the logical conclusion of the investigation. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the findings of an inquiry report and an affidavit from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, which pointed towards the petitioner’s significant involvement in the misappropriation.

The ruling also referenced the Supreme Court judgement in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr., underscoring the importance of considering the prima facie case against the accused in bail matters.

Representing the petitioner was Mr. Shakti Bhardwaj, while the State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sehajbir Singh advocated for the complainant.

This decision marks a notable stance by the High Court in addressing cases of significant financial misconduct, sending a strong message about the consequences of such actions. The observations made by the court are specific to this anticipatory bail petition and do not influence the trial court’s adjudication, which will be based on the evidence presented.

Date of Decision: 07.11.2023

HARKANWALJIT SINGH  VS STATE OF PUNJAB     

Similar News