JUDGMENT Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral): - On 18.1.2012, this Court had passed the following order:- “The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 276 dated 25.10.2011, registered at Police Station Sadar, Sonepat, under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against petitioner is that he has drawn pension of various persons and had misappropriated the same. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to paragraph No.9 of the petition to say that the only amount which has been disbursed by the petitioner is Rs.500, which pertained to the month of September 2012 as the beneficiary-Indrawati had died on 15.9.2010. Learned counsel further submits that regarding various other amounts, so disbursed, the beneficiaries have themselves taken stand that they were the recipient of the amounts and have also returned the same. Issue notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for 6.2.2012. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall, however, join the investigation as and when called for and he will also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” 2. Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Sat Narain, Police Station Sadar, Sonepat states that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not further required by the investigating agency. 3. Mr. Ashwani Gaur, counsel appearing for the complainant has stated that all the beneficiaries have not deposited the amount and the petitioner, being Sarpanch, was accessory to misappropriation of public funds. 4. From the contentions raised by counsel for the complainant, it seems that it is a dispute between two factions, which contested the election of Panchayat. The offence, if any, is based entirely on documents, which are stated to be in custody of the investigating agency. Since the Investigating Officer does not require the petitioner for further investigation, hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not called for. 5. Consequently, the present petition is accepted. Order dated 18.1.2012 is made absolute. The offence, if any, is based entirely on documents, which are stated to be in custody of the investigating agency. Since the Investigating Officer does not require the petitioner for further investigation, hence custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not called for. 5. Consequently, the present petition is accepted. Order dated 18.1.2012 is made absolute. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer till filing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He shall continue to appear before the Arresting/Investigating Officer as and when called for. He shall abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. --------------