PUNAM MALIK Vs. U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 197 dated 10.06.2015, under Section 409 IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 17, Chandigarh.

(2.) Allegation against the petitioner in the FIR that petitioner had not returned the original allotment file of the property, which was demanded in December, 2014. There is no allegation that petitioner received the file at any stage and there is no corresponding record regarding handing over the file to the petitioner. Petitioner was falsely implicated in this case because of differences amongst senior officers/officials, as petitioner was working as PA to Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner has already joined the investigation, as she was granted interim bail and she has cooperated with the investigating agency. Petitioner is not in the office since December, 2014, as she already stands transferred. More so, allegations against the petitioner are under Section 409 IPC, whereas there are no allegation of entrustment of file to petitioner at any stage nor she was custodian of the file. In fact, complainant had been trying to shift his liability, as he was custodian of the file.