Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 Date of Decision : December 14, 2011 Zora Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 filed by accused Zora Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M-31645 of 2011 filed by Gurbhej Singh – both seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.279 dated 08.12.2009, under Sections 406, 407, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 2 case file. The case presents a very strange picture. The case relates to a big paddy scam in District Ferozepur. FIR was lodged by District Food and Supplies Controller (DFSC) Sukhdev Singh against Satwinder Singh, Inderneel Singh and Davinder Kaur regarding embezzlement of huge stock of paddy belonging to Government. After investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) was presented against the complainant DFSC accused besides other officials of Food and Supplies Department and also against the three persons named as accused in the FIR. Thereafter, supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was also presented against another Sukhdev Singh. Permission for further investigation was also sought and granted. However, extension of time sought by Investigating Agency was declined by the learned Magistrate. However, said order has been stayed by this Court and accordingly, further investigation is going on. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that both these petitioners have not been named in the FIR nor in the two reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C., already submitted in the Court, but now they are sought to be made scapegoats to give clean chit to complainant Sukhdev Singh – DFSC. It was also contended that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the Sheller, from where the alleged misappropriation took place. Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 3 Learned State counsel, on instructions from DSP Balraj Singh, contended that one Lakha Singh, in February 2010, gave his own affidavit along with unattested joint affidavit of Zora Singh – petitioner and Kuldeep Singh. Lakha Singh offered to become approver and alleged that the entire scam took place in connivance with local police and not in connivance with officials of Food and Supplies Department. In the alleged joint affidavit of Zora Singh and Kuldeep Singh, it has been stated that both of them along with Gurbhej Singh – petitioner and Satwinder Singh (also an accused named in the FIR) committed the entire misappropriation. Learned State counsel contended that since involvement of local police of District Ferozepur was alleged, investigation was transferred to police outside District Ferozepur and presently, investigation is pending with Superintendent of Police (Crime Branch), Patiala. Counsel for the petitioners contended that alleged affidavit of Lakha Singh dated 17.02.2010 and alleged unattested joint affidavit of Zora Singh and Kuldeep Singh, written on stamp paper dated 17.02.2010, were not referred to in the two reports already submitted in the Court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the alleged unattested joint affidavit does not bear signatures of petitioner Zora Singh. However, learned State counsel, after seeking instructions, contended that these writings have been referred to in the supplementary report submitted in the Court under Section 173 Cr.P.C. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 4 The case relates to misappropriation of paddy valuing about rupees 7-8 crores, as submitted by learned State counsel. As noticed herein before, there is affidavit of Lakha Singh and also unattested joint affidavit of Zora Singh and Kuldeep Singh putting the entire blame for misappropriation of paddy on Zora Singh, Gurbhej Singh – petitioners, Kuldeep Singh and Satwinder Singh – non-petitioners. The alleged joint affidavit of Zora Singh and Kuldeep Singh purports to bear their photographs and purports to have been signed by them. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case, having very serious implications and the material allegedly existing against the petitioners, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Both the petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-36404 of 2011 filed by accused Zora Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M- 31645 of 2011 filed by Gurbhej Singh are accordingly dismissed. December 14, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE