Cr.Misc. M 12130 M of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 12130 M of 2010 Date of decision:27.7.2010 Sidharth Jain Petitioner vs. State of Haryana. Respondent Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate Mr. SS Mann,Sr.DAG, Haryana Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner is alleged to have received a sum of Rs.3.75 lacs , entrusted to him by complainant Dr.Ramanjit Singh, Director M/S FOSH LASER SPA Pvt. Ltd, Gurgaon for delivery of towels, which were to be supplied by the petitioner by importing the same from China. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate has vehemently contended that the matter is of civil nature alleging breach of contract. It was contended that the petitioner has been from the very beginning ready to supply the towels to the complainant, regarding which a sum of Rs.3.75 lacs has been received but the complainant did not complete certain formalities like issuance of purchase order and not fulfilling certain statutory requirements. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the entire record of the case. The letters, which have been exchanged between the complainant and the petitioner indicate that the petitioner had been on one hand promises to supply the articles and on the other hand gives excuses for not supplying Cr.Misc. M 12130 M of 2010 2 the articles, as per the orders of the complainant. When the complainant requests for refund of the money, the petitioner comes out with a plea that he has already deposited the advance money with the manufacturer and that in view of the design, drawing and logos on the towels, the same cannot be used by any one else. It has been claimed by the petitioner that he is a reputed businessman and that in order to save his reputation, he will have to make the remaining payment out of the total sum of Rs.7.5 lacs to the manufacturing company. It is apparent from all the letters, issued by the petitioner, that money entrusted to the petitioner has been misappropriated and is not being returned on one pretext or the other. No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. July 27 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE