IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Criminal Bail Application No.456 of 2010 Order on the Bail application of accused CRIMINAL SIDE Arvind S/o Salekh Chand R/o A-4, Block Tajpur Gaon (Badarpur Border) Mehrauli Delhi ……….Applicant (In Jail) Versus State of Uttarakhand ------- Opposite party ________________________________________________________ Arising out of FIR No.142 of 2009, U/s 406 IPC, P.S. Pantnagar, Distt. U.S. Nagar Dated: April 26, 2010 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Heard Sri Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Amit Bhatt, learned Additional G.A. for the State. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case and even he was arrested from Delhi. Contrary to this argument, learned Addl. G.A. states that the applicant was arrested from Rudrapur on 25.2.2010. He further argued that M/s B.S.D. Textile Pvt. Ltd., Sidcul Pantnagar manufactures cotton yarn and exports the same. The said Factory vide Proforma Invoice No.Yes-002 dated 30.7.2009 consigned 23,124 kilogram cotton yarn (valued about Rs.25,55,549/-) to HERMILA VIGO ROMAN DE ROMEOR JR ANTONI BAZO 782 LA VICTORIALIMA, PERU vide G.R. No.11763 dated 30.7.2009. Its shipping bill number was 08180 dated 5.10.2009. When the exported material container was opened by the import party, the custom seal was intact but instead of cotton yarn, there were 148 bags of salt found. He further argued that the container for export was made available by the Container Corporation of India, who sent the empty container on Trailer No.HR 37C 1150 along with driver Sanjay for loading in the factory. Further, on 30.7.2009 in the empty Container, 470 Cartons were loaded in the factory with cotton yarns. He further argued that during transit, some criminals took out the 470 cartons of cotton yarn and replaced it with salt. He further stated that driver Sanjay of Trailer No.HR37C-1150 was familiar with the present applicant and while the goods were being loaded, the applicant was present over there and the driver Sanjay recognized him as his Cleaner. He further submitted that when the above-said Trailer reached at Moradabad, there the present applicant Arvind and his companions met with the driver of said Trailer and somehow they managed to get the Guard of the Company come down from the Trailer. Thereafter, these people took the said Trailer at Kaanth Road of Moradabad where they took out the goods loaded in the container replacing it with salt, which was loaded in another Truck and after that containers were closed. He further argued that in this way, the applicant along with co accused committed this offence thereby causing loss of Rs.25,55,549/- to the company and the applicant and his companions replaced the goods kept in the container with salt and when the said goods were opened in the foreign country, the containers were found filled with bags of salt. He further submitted that the applicant/accused was involved in the said crime due to which the company had suffered the loss of the above said amount as well as to the goodwill of the company. After considering the above-said facts and circumstances, on hearing learned counsel for the parties, contents of the FIR and other papers available on record and also considering the gravity of the offence, it is not a fit case where the applicant is entitled for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. (Dharam Veer, J.) 26.04.2010 Rajeev Dang