Former Chandigarh deputy commissioner Mohammad Shayin’s PA, Poonam Malik, Tuesday approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case in which she was booked for criminal breach of trust for losing an official file.
The Chandigarh district court had on August 27 dismissed her bail petition, and fearing her arrest by the Chandigarh Police, Malik approached the high court Tuesday. Taking up her petition, Justice Shekher Dhawan issued a notice of motion to the Chandigarh Administration for filing its reply by September 15.
- Woman gets pre-arrest bail from Bombay HC in case by lesbian partner
- Chandigarh: Doctor files plea to set aside case against him
- 2016 auto gang rape case: Court frames charges against two accused, attaches DNA report
- Kerala High Court dismisses anticipatory bail pleas filed by 3 priests accused of rape
- December 2016 gang rape: Home department approves withdrawal of case against accused given clean chit
- High Court dismisses bail petition of Poonam Malik
Malik was booked for criminal breach of trust on June 10 on a complaint filed by an employee of the Chandigarh Estate Office, Samir Khan. As per the allegations, Malik had lost a file related to house number 3323 in 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 district court had further observed, “The recovery of the said missing file is yet to be effected form 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.”