Criminal Misc. No. M-1888 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.7.2011 (1) Criminal Misc. No. M-18888 of 2010 (O&M) Rajinder Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (2) Criminal Misc. No. M-18889 of 2010 (O&M) Sumeet Singh .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents (3) Criminal Misc. No. M-19419 of 2010 (O&M) Gurjit Singh and another .. Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned three petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR. Criminal Misc. No. M-1888 of 2010 [2] The facts have been extracted from Criminal Misc. No. M- 18888 of 2010. The petitioner herein is accused in FIR No. 59 dated 23.6.2010, under Sections 406/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Sadar Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar. The dispute arises out of a contract for shelling of paddy entered into between PUNSUP and M/s Majhoor Rice and General Mill, which is a sole proprietorship firm of Satvir Singh. Gurjit Singh is father of Satvir Singh and Harpreet Singh is his brother. Rajinder Singh is the paternal uncle of Satvir Singh, whereas Sumeet Singh is son of Rajinder Singh. They all are accused in the FIR. The allegations in the FIR are that for the crop year 2009-10, 98,906 bags weighing 34,617.10 quintals of paddy was handed over to the aforesaid mill for custom milling, out of which only 27,600 bags weighing 9,660 quintals of paddy was milled and remaining 71,306 bags weighing 24,957.10 quintals of paddy remained with the mill, which was never delivered back to PUNSUP after milling. On inspection, it was found that the paddy was missing from the mill, though it was in joint custody of the miller as well as PUNSUP. On account of embezzlement, with the aforesaid allegations the FIR was registered. Notice of motion in the petition was issued on 6.7.2010 and arrest of the petitioner was stayed. On 24.8.2010, learned counsel for the State submitted that though initially the petitioner came to join investigation but thereafter did not join investigation. On 17.12.2010 as well, it has been noticed by this court that though the petitioner had joined investigation but he was not co-operating for effecting recovery of the stock, which had allegedly been misappropriated. On 29.4.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to get instructions from the petitioner as to whether he 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 the arbitration proceedings. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he cannot furnish the bank guarantee, as he is not concerned with the receipt of paddy by the mill for its shelling and re- Criminal Misc. No. M-1888 of 2010 [3] delivery. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. As has already been noticed in the previous part of the order that the petitioners are directly related with Satvir Singh, who had taken the rice mill on lease showing himself tobe a sole proprietor. The petitioners in this bunch of petitions are none else than his father, his brother and his paternal uncle. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that at the time of delivery of paddy in the mill, the aforesaid persons had signed the gate passes and further there is material with the police in the form of statements of various persons that the trucks owned by Rajinder Singh had been transporting the paddy to them. The aforesaid persons were, in fact, selling the paddy which was belonging to PUNSUP. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. The petitions are dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 3.6.2011 mk