High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/29080/2015dismissed

Ghaminder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2015-08-31Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM No.M-29080 of 2015 Date of Decision: August 31, 2015 Ghaminder Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

Present:

Mr.Harvinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** INDERJIT SINGH, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.54 dated 04.08.2015 under Sections 420, 409 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The FIR in the present case has been registered on the basis of secret information that Manager/Inspector of SJS Markfed Godown, in connivance with his fellow officials and petitioner who is the owner of M/s DC Daily Choice Agro Food and Feed Processing, is selling the wheat grain owned by the Government for gaining benefits by loading 100-150 bags on the tractor bearing registration No.PBI4775, which is being driven by Raj Singh. The said tractor trolley was VINEET GULATI 2015.09.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM No.M-29080 of 2015 -2apprehended by the police party on raid.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no FIR regarding theft of the wheat nor there is any application regarding loss of wheat by the department.

From the record, I find that FIR has been registered some days back only and investigation is going on. The allegations against the present petitioner is that wheat of Markfed, which was loaded in the tractor trolley, was for the petitioner who has purchased it in connivance with the officials of the Marked.

Keeping in view the nature and gravity of the offence and in view of the fact that petitioner is named in the FIR and active role is attributed to him, I find that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

August 31, 2015 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE VINEET GULATI 2015.09.07 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh