IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-9850 of 2009 Date of decision : September 04, 2009 Rajesh Srivastava ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the complainant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Rajesh Srivastava has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 105 dated 20.3.2009 under sections 406, 420 and 506 IPC, Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the case file. According to the prosecution version, the petitioner is proprietor of M/s Marvel Enterprises to which work was allotted by complainant-company vide contract Annexure P/1. Material was to be supplied by the complainant and the same was to be installed by the petitioner. The work consisted of 30.3 kms of HT (high tension) and 6 kms of LT (low tension) for segregation of rural domestic load and agricultural Criminal Misc. No. M-9850 of 2009 -2- load of two feeders of electricity. The complainant supplied material worth Rs 79,95,186.34. Out of it, material worth Rs 34,50,705.92 was received by the petitioner himself and balance material worth Rs 45,44,480.42 was received by petitioner's Supervisor Rambilas. Out of the total material, the petitioner consumed material worth Rs 32,49,291.00 and returned material worth Rs 5,07,162.28 to the complainant company and mis-appropriated the remaining material worth Rs 42,38,733.06, as per the details given by the complainant-company in material re-conciliation report Annexure C1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that 30.3 kms of high tension line was to consist of 3 cables i.e. in triplicate making length of the line as 90.9 kms and therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to have supplied 127 kms cable. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, countered this contention by submitting that in addition to 30.3 kms HT line in triplicate, the petitioner was also to lay 6 kms of low tension line in quadruplicate i.e. in four cables amounting to 24 kms and therefore, total length of cable to be laid comes to 114.9 kms and some extra material was supplied on account of wastage and pilferage. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that bills of the petitioner were cleared for 75% labour charges after verification of material at the spot and therefore, there could be no such large scale mis-appropriation of material as alleged by the complainant. However, per contra, learned counsel for the complainant contended that labour charges bills of the petitioner were cleared after verifying the material installed by the petitioner and not after verifying the balance material. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that Criminal Misc. No. M-9850 of 2009 -3- the material said to have been mis-appropriated by the petitioner was allegedly supplied to Rambilas with whom petitioner has no concern. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner has raised bills for labour charges even qua some of the material which had been supplied to Rambilas. In addition thereto, it is contended by the learned State counsel that statement of Rambilas has been recorded during investigation and he has stated that the had been employed as Supervisor by the petitioner and had been introduced to the complainant- company and had been receiving the material from the complainant- company on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the complainant-company placed purchase order Annexure P/5 dated 5.8.2008 with sister concern of the petitioner namely M/s Marvel Hi-Tech Solutions and if the petitioner had mis-appropriated the complainant's material, the complainant would not have placed this purchase order with the petitioner's sister concern. Learned counsel for the complainant, however, submitted that purchase order Annexure P/5 is for purchase of material from the petitioner's sister concern by the complainant and by that time, mis- appropriation of the material by the petitioner regarding work order Annexure P/1 had not come to the notice of the complainant-company. Keeping in view all the circumstances and the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and the value of the material said to have been mis-appropriated by the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit Criminal Misc. No. M-9850 of 2009 -4- case to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The petition is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 04, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'