Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a case where trucks used for transporting wheat were allegedly involved in misappropriation. Court held anticipatory bail unavailable as petitioner sold the trucks and recovery remains incomplete.
Petition dismissed; no anticipatory bail granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-16331 of 2009
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-16331 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 11.09.2009
Surjit Singh . . . . Petitioner
VS.
State of Punjab . . . . Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.M.S. Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab for the respondent/State.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.99 dated 7.7.2006 registered under Sections 407, 120-B IPC at Police Station City, Gurdaspur.
The aforesaid FIR has been registered on behalf of M/s Chadha Motors. The allegations contained in the FIR are that M/s Chadha Motors entered into a contract with Food Corporation of India (in short ‘FCI’) for transportation of food-grains (wheat and rice) from its godowns situated at Gurdaspur District to various destinations in Jammu and Kashmir. The said firm requisitioned trucks from private transporters in order to perform their contract of transportation of wheat and rice within a stipulated period. It was found that huge quantity of wheat, as per details given by the FCI, did not reach the destination. The owners and drivers of the said trucks neither delivered the wheat at the destination nor did
CRM-M-16331 of 2009
- 2 -
they bring back the wheat to the concerned godowns. The owners and drivers of the said trucks were approached only to deliver the wheat stock entrusted to them or return the same to the concerned godowns. But they did not do so. Apparently, the drivers and owners of the truck have intentionally usurped wheat stocks worth lacks of rupees which has been entrusted to them by M/s Chadha Motors.
Apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid FIR, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed on 21.5.2009 on the ground that recovery is yet to be effected.
At the time of notice of motion on 12.6.2009, the following order was passed by this Court: -
“Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon orders passed in case of co-accused, bearing Criminal Misc. No.78062-M of 2006, Criminal Misc. No.923-M of 2007 and Criminal Misc. No.M-20405 of 2008, vide which they were granted benefit of pre-arrest bail. Counsel has further submitted that petitioner has not been declared as Proclaimed Offender.
Issue notice of motion to AG Punjab for 8th July, 2009.
In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Petitioner shall abide by all the conditions specified under Section 438(2), Cr.P.C.”
CRM-M-16331 of 2009
- 3 -
On the adjourned date, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. Whereas, counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is not co-operating with the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was, therefore, directed to join the investigation again.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has again joined the investigation. He has also relied upon the order passed by this Court in CRM-M-78602 of 2006 titled as “Yashpal Oberoi Vs. State of Punjab” and CRM-M-20905 of 2008 titled as “Taranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab”.
Per contra learned for the State has argued that in case CRM-M-20905 of 2008, anticipatory bail was granted subject to production of the Trucks by the said petitioner. The relevant portion of the order passed in CRM-M-20905 of 2008 on 8.5.2009 is reproduced as under:
“Thereafter, on April 27, 2009, statement of the counsel for the petitioner was recorded that the trucks and their registration certificates shall be produced before the Investigating Officer, with liberty to file application for release of the vehicles on Superdari from the trial Court.
Counsel for the State has submitted that trucks have not been produced before the Investigating Officer.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the trucks were plying in Assam, therefore needful could not be done and
CRM-M-16331 of 2009
- 4 -
he pray that one more opportunity may be granted.
Counsel for the State, on instructions from Surinder Singh SI has stated that except for production of the trucks, nothing else is required from the petitioner.
Taking this into consideration, present petition is disposed off with a direction that in case petitioner produces trucks in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala on or before 20th May, 2009, he shall be released on bail after furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. Petitioner shall continue to join investigation. Petitioner shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. In case, trucks are not surrendered on or before 20th May, 2009, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that in the present case, the petitioner has failed to produce the trucks and has rather informed, on the instructions received from the Investigating Officer, that the trucks have already been sold, which he could not have done as it was the case property.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the
CRM-M-16331 of 2009
- 5 -
order passed by this Court in CRM-M-20905 of 2008 referred to above. In that case, it was ordained that in case the petitioner produces the trucks before the Court below then he shall be released on bail and in case the trucks are not surrendered then the Investigating Officer was given liberty to take the petitioner into custody.
Since in the present case, the petitioner has deliberately sold the truck in question and the recovery of the wheat, which was transported, is yet to be effected, I do not find it to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 vivek
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner has sold the implicated trucks used for transporting goods under investigation?
Whether the petitioner is fit for anticipatory bail given that recovery of stolen wheat is yet to be effected?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Criminal Misc. No.78062-M of 2006Referred¶24
Criminal Misc. No.923-M of 2007Referred¶24
Criminal Misc. No.M-20405 of 2008Referred¶24
Yashpal Oberoi Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶30
CRM-M-78602 of 2006
Taranjit Singh Vs. State of PunjabDistinguished¶30
CRM-M-20905 of 2008
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Surjit Singh
State of Punjab
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
