The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of evidence and the debatable nature of the alleged offenses in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose off the above mentioned two petitions filed on behalf of Ranjodh Singh and Lalit Kumar Goyal seeking grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 10 dated 25.5.2022 under Sections 409, 201/120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(A) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018) at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. The allegations, in nutshell, are that Tarlochan Singh (non-applicant) had remained Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kotla Suleman and during his tenure, the Gram Panchayat had received a compensation amount of Rs.4,18,00,000/- on account of acquisition of land vesting in Panchayat and some amount was also received from some other sources and thus, a total of Rs. 4,20,25,000/- was received. Tarlochan Singh had spent an amount of Rs.2,86,25,000/- on development work of the village. The remaining amount of Rs.1,34,00,000/- was shown to have been spent by Ranjodh Singh, authorized Panch on account of development works. However, upon checking by Tarsem Lal, Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj, PWD Jalandhar, it was found that financial loss to the tune of Rs.27,59,538/- had been caused by Ranjodh Singh, authorized Panch. The work executed during the tenure of Ranjodh Singh, authorized Panch was checked by Technical Team-I of Vigilance Bureau, Punjab and as per the final assessment, misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 20,67,068/- was found to have been committed by Ranjodh Singh, authorized Panch, Lokesh Thaman, J.E. Pavittar Singh, Panchayat Secretary etc. It is alleged that the Gram Panchayat was required to seek technical approval prior to getting development work done but the same had not been taken by Ranjodh Singh Lokesh Thaman, J.E. and Pavittar Singh, Panchayat Secretary. It is also alleged that the Lalit Kumar Goyal, who was previously posted as J.E. had not produced the Measurement Book though he had been asked for the same repeatedly and it was found that his successor i.e. Lokesh Thaman, J.E. had started a new Measurement Book in connivance with Ranjodh Singh.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner - Lalit Kumar Goyal, Junior Engineer submitted that the allegations of misappropriation/ embezzlement pertained to the period 5.1.2018 to 13.7.2018 when Ranjodh Singh had been authorized to look after the affairs of the Panchayat as the Sarpanch Tarlochan Singh had gone abroad. It has been submitted that during the said period, the petitioner Lalit Kumar Goyal, J.E. was not even posted in the said place as he had been transferred from Sirhind to Dera Bassi on 10.7.2017 and thereafter from Dera Bassi to Majri vide order dated 22.6.2018. The learned counsel has submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had not handed over the Measurement Book despite having been asked for the same by Vigilance Bureau officials whereas the petitioner, upon his transfer in July, 2017 had relinquished the charge and had handed over the entire record to his successor and that no such complaint was ever made by his successor regarding the petitioner not having handed over any document/ Measurement Book etc. and nor any document/record/ledger was ever sought from him all these years which could indicate that the petitioner had not handed over such Measurement Book.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that in any case, there is no allegation pertaining to any embezzlement/misappropriation in respect of the period when the petitioner was posted at Sirhind and even if it is admitted that the measurement book had not been handed over by the petitioner, the measurements can always be taken subsequently also, particularly as regards the work executed and that the omission to hand over the measurement book, without there being anything to suggest that the petitioner had misappropriated or embezzled any amount will not constitute an