CRM-M-34191-2011 [ 1 ] ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34191-2011 Date of decision: 14.12.2011 Randhir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.97 dated 01.07.2011, under Section 406 of IPC at Police Station Dirbha, District Sangrur. The allegation against the petitioner is that 60643 bags of the paddy, weighing 21225.05 quintals, were handed over to the petitioner against a receipt who was responsible for its safe custody. An agreement dated 01.1.2010 was entered into between the parties for the purpose of milling of the aforesaid paddy. On 17.06.2011, Hari Chand Verma, Inspector of the Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited, who was the joint custodian of the paddy, physically checked the stock and had found that there was shortage of 17024 bags of paddy, weighing 5958 quintals, out of which rice would have come to 3992.13 quintals, which would be valued as per FCI rate to an amount of `79,56,089/- @ `1908.95 per quintal plus 4.4% VAT besides quality cut and CRM-M-34191-2011 [ 2 ] ::::::: the cost of Bardana. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 20.07.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has been milling the stocks of paddy which was issued to him through release order. He has further submitted that the paddy was not in his exclusive possession, rather it was in the joint custody of Hari Chand Verma, Inspector against whom no allegation has been made. On the oral request of learned counsel for the petitioner, Senior District Manager, Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation, Sangrur was impleaded as respondent No.2 and a notice was issued to him accordingly. Shri Arun Nehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, has produced a copy of the agreement dated 01.11.2010. He has referred to para no.6 of the said agreement as per which it was the duty of the miller to keep the paddy in safe custody and to deliver rice as per the out-turn ratio fixed by the Government of India. He has also referred to Clause 18(iii) of the said agreement to contend that the stocks were issued to him in the lots of 200 tonnes (two stacks) each, which is duly signed by him. He has also referred to letter Annexure P-1 in support of his submissions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail, perused the record and I am of the view that this case requires custodial interrogation because the shortage of paddy worth `79,56,089/- has not been duly explained. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Before parting, it would not necessary to add that the police shall also investigate the role of Inspector Hari Chand Verma, Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Limited, who was allegedly the joint custodian of the paddy. December 14 , 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE