The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by former Chandigarh deputy commissioner Mohammad Shayin’s PA, Poonam Malik, in a case in which she was booked for criminal breach of trust for losing an official file.
The decision came from the court headed by Justice Shekher Dhawan. The detailed judgment is yet to be released.
- Ryan International murder case: Bus conductor Ashok Kumar gets bail
- Jiah Khan case: Bombay HC asks actor’s mother to file response to Pancholi’s petition
- Bombay HC asks Jiah Khan's mother to file affidavit on Sooraj Pancholi's plea
- Chandigarh moves Supreme Court against High Court verdict striking nominated councillors’ voting rights
- Fraud of Rs 70 crore: HC grants bail to Shalimar Mall owners
- Chandigarh: Poonam Malik seeks anticipatory bail in case of criminal breach of trust
The Chandigarh Administration’s counsel submitted before the court Tuesday that Malik should not be granted bail in this case as there were serious allegations against her, as had been observed by the Chandigarh district court earlier.
The district court had on August 27 dismissed her bail petition, and fearing her arrest by the Chandigarh Police, Malik had approached the high court.
Malik was booked in the case on June 10 on a complaint filed by an employee of the Estate Office, Samir Khan.
As per the allegations, Malik had lost a file related to house number 3323 of Sector 19-D, Chandigarh, which was in her possession.
It was alleged in the complaint that the file was with Malik since her taking charge in the Estate Office and despite several reminders she had failed to return it.
Dismissing her bail petition, the Chandigarh district court had earlier observed, “The fact remains that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused applicant is quite serious in nature. Right now there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution version. It is definitely not the case where the accused applicant is being unnecessarily harassed. Granting her anticipatory bail will send a wrong signal to society and will also embolden the accused.”
The court had further observed, “The recovery of the said missing file is yet to be effected from her, for which her custodial interrogation is necessary since she has not given any clues about the same when she joined the investigation. In view of the specific incriminating role attributed to the accused applicant, she does not deserve the permission of a pre-arrest bail.”