CRM No. M-3580 of 2011 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh CRM No. M-3580 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 13.7.2011. Satvir Singh ..... Petitioner vs State of Punjab ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Rajesh Bindal J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of pre- arrest bail in FIR No. 59 dated 23.6.2010, registered under Sections 406, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The present petition was listed on 12.7.2011 before this court and the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will furnish the bank guarantee in terms of the order passed by this court on 29.4.2011. Let the bank guarantee be brought in court tomorrow, i.e., 13.7.2011 and the petitioner shall also appear in person in court so that in case of failure to furnish bank guarantee, the case could be decided and in case need be, he be taken into custody.” Today the case was taken up twice, however, counsel for the petitioner has not appeared. The petitioner in the present petition is the sole proprietor of the Mill namely M/s Majhoor Rice and General Mill, which had taken 98,906 bags weighing 34,617.10 quintals paddy from PUNSUP for custom CRM No. M-3580 of 2011 (2) milling. Out of that the petitioner firm has milled only 27,600 bags weighing 9,660 quintals of paddy and the remaining 71,306 bags containing 24,957.10 quintals paddy remained with the Miller. However, on inspection by the complainant, balance paddy was found to have been embezzled by the owner of the Mill. The bail application filed by other co-accused bearing CRM No. M-18888 of 2010 Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab has been dismissed by this court on 12.7.2011. Considering the aforesaid facts and also that on 29.4.2011 time was granted to the counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions as to whether the petitioner is ready to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of the value of the disputed paddy without prejudice to his rights in the criminal case and/or the arbitration proceedings, non-appearance of the counsel the petitioner today in court shows that he is not willing to furnish the same. Keeping in view the allegations in the FIR and subsequent conduct of the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. Interim order passed in favour of the petitioner is vacated. 13.7.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge