CRM No. M-19 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-19 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2009 Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. The prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case registered against him under Section 7/10/55 of Essential Commodities Act and 420 IPC, at Police Station Pillu Khera, District Jind, vide FIR No.198 dated 26th November, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not given any wheat in the month of May, 2008, thus, he has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel for the State (on the instructions from ASI Dharamvir, who is present in Court) has, however, opposed the bail and has submitted that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency despite repeated opportunities. According to the counsel, the allegations against the petitioner is that he misappropriated the grant meant for people below poverty line and sold the wheat, CRM No. M-19 of 2009 2 kerosene oil and rice in open market. Learned counsel has also submitted that according to the report obtained from the department, the petitioner was in fact given wheat for May, 2008. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In view of the fact that allegation against the petitioner is that he sold wheat, kerosene oil and rice in the open market, despite the fact that these commodities were meant for the people below poverty line, there is no ground to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In the order dated May 07, 2009, passed by this Court, it was made clear that in case the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigating agency, this petition would be liable to be dismissed. The stand of the State counsel before this court today is that the petitioner has not got the goods recovered and has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, this court is not inclined to grant concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE July 27, 2009 'rajpal'