The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a contractor involved in a high-profile case concerning the alleged embezzlement of crores of rupees from Gram Panchayat funds in Patiala district, Punjab. The court observed that there are serious allegations of misappropriation of public funds through the creation of fake bills, and custodial interrogation of the accused is essential to uncover the truth.
Justice Surya Pratap Singh passed this order on a petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Bansal. Bansal had sought pre-arrest bail regarding FIR No. 37, registered on July 23, 2025, at the Vigilance Bureau Police Station in Patiala. The case originated from a Vigilance Bureau investigation report. The probe revealed that approximately ₹58.43 crore was available in the panchayat accounts during the tenure of the then Sarpanch of Nalas Khurd village, Munshi Ram, and the panchayat members. Additionally, around ₹7.50 crore was received between 2019 and 2022 from various grants, interest, and other sources.
Crores spent on development works
The Vigilance investigation alleged that the panchayat claimed an expenditure of ₹32.20 crore on various development works; however, a technical inspection revealed serious irregularities in several of these expenses. Investigative agencies found a financial loss of approximately ₹3.61 crore in the stadium construction project alone. The most serious aspect of the investigation relates to the project for installing an electric furnace and a shed at the village cremation ground.
According to the Vigilance Bureau, the panchayat made payments to several firms—including that of Dinesh Kumar Bansal—for the procurement and installation of the electric furnace. However, an on-site inspection revealed that no furnace had been installed. The investigating agency alleges that payments were withdrawn without the furnace actually being installed, resulting in a loss of ₹43.32 lakh to the public exchequer. The contractor was implicated as a party to the conspiracy.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that he was merely a contractor who had fully executed the work assigned to him. Conversely, the State government contended that the accused was not just a contractor but an active participant in the alleged conspiracy. It is alleged that, in collusion with the Sarpanch and other Panchayat officials, he prepared forged bills and played a role in the misappropriation of government funds.
The State submitted to the court that if the materials had indeed been purchased, the accused was obliged to disclose the source of the purchase, the recipient of the payment, and the relevant documentation.
Petition dismissed in view of the circumstances
The High Court observed that there was no concrete evidence on record to prove that the furnace or the related materials had actually been purchased from any supplier. The Court noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief that cannot be granted in ordinary cases—particularly when the allegations involve the embezzlement of public funds, the fabrication of documents, and corruption.
Under these circumstances, the High Court held that the investigating agency should be granted the opportunity for custodial interrogation. Consequently, Dinesh Kumar Bansal’s anticipatory bail petition was dismissed.
