IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 103 CRM-M-33611-2026 Date of Decision.:12.06.2026 Pooja Yadav …..Pe**oner Vs. State of Haryana .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present peon filed under Secon 482 of the Bharaya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the peoner seeks the concession of ancipatory bail in FIR No.82 dated 25.05.2026 registered under Secon 316(5) of the Bharaya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [corresponding to Secon 409 IPC] at Police Staon Sadar Kanina, District Mahendergarh. 2. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of a communicaon dated 02.04.2026 addressed by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Mahendergarh to the Superintendent of Police, Mahendergarh. The allegaon is that despite repeated communicaons issued by the competent authories, the peoner, who served as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Syana during the period 2016-2021, failed to account for or hand over Panchayat material valued at ₹19,42,269.37/-. 4. Learned counsel for the peoner contends that she has been falsely implicated. It is argued that no offence under Secon 316(5) BNS is made out as there is neither any misappropriaon nor any dishonest conversion of Panchayat property. It is submiBed that the FIR has been NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33611-2026 lodged nearly five years aCer the peoner demiBed office and is the outcome of polical rivalry. Learned counsel further submits that proceedings regarding recovery are already pending before the revenue authories and an appeal against the order passed by the SDO is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. It is argued that the dispute is essenally administrave in nature and that the peoner is willing to join invesgaon and cooperate with the invesgang agency. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that during inquiry, it was found that material worth ₹19,42,269.37/- was shown to have been purchased from Panchayat funds during the tenure of the peoner. However, neither was such material ulized for Panchayat purposes nor was it handed over to the succeeding Sarpanch upon compleon of her tenure. It is further submiBed that recovery of the said material is yet to be effected and custodial interrogaon of the peoner is necessary to ascertain the whereabouts of the stock and the manner in which the Panchayat property was dealt with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the pares and perused the material available on record. 7. At the stage of consideraon of ancipatory bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or adjudicate upon the correctness of rival claims. The primary consideraon is whether, having regard to the nature of accusaons and the requirements of invesgaon, the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail deserves to be granted. 8. The allegaons against the peoner pertain to Panchayat property allegedly purchased from public funds and entrusted to her in her capacity as Sarpanch. The record placed before the Court indicates that during the inquiry proceedings, the peoner herself took the stand that the material in queson was available and that she was willing to hand over NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33611-2026 the same. Prima facie, such stand lends support to the allegaon that the material was not handed over to the successor Sarpanch when the peoner ceased to hold office in the year 2021. 9. Significantly, despite the lapse of several years aCer demiHng office, the material is alleged to have remained outside the control and custody of the Gram Panchayat. Whether the peoner has actually retained the stock, whether the stock exists in the quanty reflected in the records and whether the same corresponds with the purchases shown in Panchayat accounts are all maBers requiring invesgaon. 10. The contenon that the peoner has preferred an appeal against the order of the SDO also does not advance her case. Pendency of departmental, administrave or recovery proceedings cannot by itself be a ground to sfle criminal invesgaon when the allegaons prima facie disclose entrustment of public property and its non-accounng. Civil or administrave consequences and criminal liability may co-exist and one does not necessarily exclude the other. 11. This Court also finds substance in the submission of the State that custodial interrogaon may be necessary for recovery and verificaon of the Panchayat material allegedly valued at ₹19,42,269.37/-. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ancipatory bail should not be granted where custodial interrogaon is necessary for effecve invesgaon and recovery of incriminang material. Public funds and public property stand on a different foong and allegaons regarding their misappropriaon have to be viewed with the seriousness they deserve. 12. Having regard to (i) the nature of accusaons involving entrustment of Panchayat property, (ii) the peoner's own stand regarding possession/availability of the material, (iii) the necessity of tracing and recovering the stock allegedly purchased from public funds, and NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-33611-2026 (iv) the fact that invesgaon is sll at a preliminary stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that no exceponal case is made out for grant of ancipatory bail. 13. Consequently, the present peon is dismissed. 14. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and shall not prejudice either side during the course of invesgaon or trial. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE June 12, 2024 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.06.12 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document