Roop Singh v. State of Punjab

PRESENT: Mr.J.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Rawat, AAG, Punjab. **** ORDER The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by petitioner Roop Singh for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 34 dated 4.6.2010 under Sections 420/406 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadik, District Faridkot Notice of motion was issued in the case on 5.7.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case and he is not liable for any deficiency or non-delivery of rice to FCI. Co-accused Rajinder Kumar was at the helm of affairs and was responsible for any deficiency in delivery of rice to FCI as per an agreement and a dissolution deed executed between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that complaint was made by PUNSUP against the petitioner as well as co-accused Rajinder Kumar whereas it was in the knowledge of PUNSUP and a correspondence Crl.Misc.No.M-18727 of 2010 [2] was also made with regard to the factum of dissolution deed and even in the affidavit submitted by co-accused Rajinder Kumar it has specifically been admitted that being the sole proprietor, he is responsible and liable for any loss caused to FCI. Rajinder Kumar was the sole proprietor of the firm and was authorized by PUNSUP only to do milling of paddy and correspondence was also there between PUNSUP and said Rajinder Kumar with regard to that affairs. As per clause 5 of the agreement dated 16.10.2008, the paddy was to remain in joint custody of PUNSUP till its milling was complete and no complaint was ever made by PUNSUP against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that it is a case of civil nature and no custodial interrogation is required. Mr. R.S.Rawat, learned AAG, Punjab opposes the bail on the ground that the present petitioner was sole proprietor of the firm and was responsible for any deficiency and huge loss has been caused to FCI. The petitioner cannot be absolved from criminal liability as it is a scam where shortage has been deducted on physical verification and many persons are involved for which custodial interrogation is required. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the contents of the FIR as well as other documents available on the file. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by PUNSUP. As per case of the prosecution, District Food and Crl.Misc.No.M-18727 of 2010 [3] Supply Controller, Faridkot allotted M/s Malwa Rice Mill, Kingre for milling of paddy for year 2008-2009 to PUNSUP on 16th October,

2008. An agreement was executed between petitioner, who was sole proprietor of the Mill and District Manager, PUNSUP on 16th October, 2008. An affidavit dated 6.12.2008 was also given by the petitioner declaring him as sole proprietor of the Mill. On 22.6.2009, a partnership deed of the said mill between petitioner and one Rajinder Kumar was submitted in the office but later on, a dissolution deed was presented in the office on 25.6.2009 wherein the petitioner had withdrawn himself from partnership deed and Rajinder Kumar took over all the liabilities of the firm. An affidavit to this effect was also filed by said Rajinder Kumar stating that all clauses of the agreement executed by the petitioner would be applicable to him and he would be liable to make good all shortages/financial loss of the firm. As per agreement, the said firm did not fulfil the compromise and less quantity was delivered. On conducting physical verification of the stock, the shortage was detected by PUNSUP and FIR was registered. However, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of alleged physical verification, the sole proprietor of the Mill was Rajinder Kumar and the present petitioner was not involved in any manner as an affidavit has already been given by co-accused Rajinder Kumar to this effect. During the year 2008-2009, petitioner was the sole proprietor and was at the helm of affairs, whereas subsequently,co- accused Rajinder Kumar took over the firm on the basis of Crl.Misc.No.M-18727 of 2010 [4] dissolution deed executed between petitioner and said Rajinder Kumar. It is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in various judgments that powers exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are somewhat extra ordinary in character and to be used only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated. So, the petitioner in order to seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this case is required to make out a special case in his favour or the case appears to be false or where the applicant is likely to be harassed unnecessarily due to some extraneous reasons. The allegations against the present petitioner are serious in nature and the case is at the initial stage of investigation. The verification was of total bags which were found deficient in the premises of the Mill. In fact there was settlement between two partners but the petitioner cannot keep himself away from the lapses occurred during his tenure. Moreover, it is a matter of investigation which is to be seen by the Investigating Agency. It would be too early to say anything about the lapse on the part of either of two accused at this stage. If any order is passed during investigation that would amount to interference in the investigation which is in progress. Learned counsel for the State has specifically stated that it is not only a case of mere shortage of paddy but it is a scam and without custodial interrogation, truth would not come out. The said Rajinder Crl.Misc.No.M-18727 of 2010 [5] Kumar is also not co-operating in the investigation. No ground is made out to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. October , 2010. raghav (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE