Crl.Misc. No.M-13237 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 09, 2010 Criminal Misc. No. M-13237 of 2009 (O&M) Bhushan Bhardwaj ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Criminal Misc. No. M-13539 of 2009 (O&M) Amrik Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Baldev Sigh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in Criminal Misc. No.M-13237 of 2009) Mr.G.S.Punia Advocate for the petitioner (in Criminal Misc. No.M-13539 of 2009) Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the complainant. ** Sabina, J. Vide this order, the above-mentioned two criminal Misc. Crl.Misc. No.M-13237 of 2009 (O&M) 2 petitions are being disposed of by a common order as these have arisen out of the same FIR. Petitioners have filed above-mentioned two petitions under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.72 dated 20.4.2009, under Sections 406/407/408/415/420/464/467/468/471/120-B/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') registered at Police Station Gobindgarh. The allegations against the petitioners in brief are that Bhusan Bhardwaj was known to the complainant and started purchasing material vide various invoices from the complainant. Complainant was assured that the material would be delivered to various parties. Amrik Singh used to take the delivery of the material from the complainant which was purchased by Bhushan Bhardwaj. Bhushan Bhardwaj continued to purchase the material from the complainant from 04.09.2007 upto 25.02.2009. However, it transpired that the material had not been supplied to the concerned parties. Petitioner-Amrik Singh had been charging freight qua each consignment and assured the complainant that the material had been delivered to each of the purchasers. Believing the said assurance, complainant paid the freight to Amrik Singh. On inquiry complainant found out that, in fact, the material had never been supplied to the purchasers. In these circumstances, the accused in connivance with each other had committed misappropriation of huge funds of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were innocent. In fact, no misappropriation had been done by the petitioner-Bhushan Bhardwaj. Petitioner- Amrik Singh was merely running a transport agency and had no concern with the material purchased or sold Crl.Misc. No.M-13237 of 2009 (O&M) 3 by the petitioner-Bhushan Bhardwaj, Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the offence committed by the petitioners was serious in nature. Vide order dated 22.5.2009, arrest of the petitioners was stayed with a view to enable the parties to resolve their disputes amicably. However, the dispute could not be resolved between the parties. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserve dismissal. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. As per the complainant, both the accused in connivance with each other had misappropriated the material supplied by the complainant. Both the accused had handed over the reports to the complainant qua delivery of material to various purchasers although the material had never been supplied to the said purchasers. Complainant has suffered a huge loss. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 09, 2010 arya