JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.12618-19 of 2012 Applications are allowed, as prayed for. Documents, Annexure P3 and P4 are taken on record. Main case Maya Devi, the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.6 dated 16.12.2011 at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Haryana, Panchkula for an offence punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The matter relates to embezzlement of a sum of Rs.85,18,875/-, allegedly spent on installing iron lattices over drains in the wards at Pinjore. The petitioner is claimed to be one of the members of Municipal Council, Pinjore. The petitioner alongwith some other councillors, claiming themselves to be members of a sub-committee, approved the bills without installation of the iron lattices. It is also alleged that iron lattices were already installed at the place where they are claimed to have been installed now for which the aforesaid amount has been withdrawn and misappropriated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the main allegations are against the president of the municipal council, accounts clerk, secretary of municipal council, accountant and contractor. According to him, the bills are alleged to have been verified by a false committee constituted by 5-6 councilors. He has submitted that the authority to make the payments is with the president and executive officer of the municipal council. He has further submitted that no committee of which the petitioner is part, has in fact been constituted. He has also submitted that no charge of misappropriation is directly levelled against the petitioner. According to him, some co-accused of the petitioner have filed application for anticipatory bail before the court of Session in which interim bail has been granted to them. 4. The first important aspect to be considered in this case is that the signatures of the petitioner on the bills are not denied. As admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, no sub-committee in this regard was constituted and if it is so, then the committee as a member of which the petitioner had signed the bills, had been a false committee. As admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, no sub-committee in this regard was constituted and if it is so, then the committee as a member of which the petitioner had signed the bills, had been a false committee. Although, after recommendations of the committee, the bills were finally passed by the president and executive officer of the municipal council, the petitioner cannot be claimed to have no connection with the funds so withdrawn from the account of the council in the name of installation of iron lattices. 5. Accordingly, it is a very serious matter and no relief whatsoever can be given to the petitioner for the fact that a Sessions court has given notice of the applications for anticipatory bail of some co-accused of the petitioner and has granted interim bail to them. The matter is still to be considered by learned Sessions court on merits and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner on the grant of interim relief to the coaccused of the petitioner by the Sessions court. Consequently, the petitioner does not deserve to be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------