Crl. Misc. -M No. 17126 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 17126 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.9.2011 Satpal ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The allegation in the FIR, which was got registered by the Bank, is that partners of M/s Jai Dairy Farm, consisting of the petitioner and one Surajmal had been advanced loan of ` 3 crores on 4.8.2008. With the loan amount, they had purchased motor, generator, fans, fountain, feed machine and other dairy implements and 107 hybrid cows. When premises of the aforesaid firm was inspected by the Bank on 4.3.2011, there was nothing available. Entire machinery and hybrid cows, which were mortgaged with the bank, were missing. Thereafter, FIR was got registered against the partners of the Firm. The case set up by the petitioner is that prior to the registration of the FIR when the petitioner came to know that his partner had removed the plant and machinery and the cows, he filed a complaint with the police on 5.3.2011. He further submitted that even Surajmal had stated before the police that he had sold plant and machinery and the cows and he will settle the loan account with the bank. He further submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already joined investigation. Liability of loan of the bank is civil matter. Plant and machinery and cows have been removed by the co-accused Surajmal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner being a partner of the firm is equally liable. It has been Crl. Misc. -M No. 17126 of 2011 -2- mentioned in the order of the Court below that the petitioner had also sold one show- room owned by him which had been mortgaged with the Bank. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is a partner in the firm which had raised a loan of ` 3 crores from the bank for setting up their dairy business. From the loan amount plant and machinery and 107 hybrid cows were purchased. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was the sleeping partner and was not involved in the day-to-day business of the firm. If the mortgage/hypothecated property had been sold even by one of the partners, the petitioner being other partner cannot escape his liability. It has been noticed by the learned Court below that the petitioner has also sold one show-room mortgaged to secure the loan. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve concession of pre arrest bail. Dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 29.9.2011 Judge Meenu