IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGAR
Sr. No. 101 CRM-M-10321-2017
Decided on : 27.03.2017
Jan Mohd. ….. Petitioner(s)
State of Haryana ….. Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
Present: Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (ORAL)
Through the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr. P. C.,
the petitioner seeks the concession of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 136, dated
11.02.2017, registered under Section 406 IPC and Sections 7, 10 and 55 of
the Essential Commodities Act, at Police Station Sadar Palwal, District
The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the
villagers the ration depot of the petitioner was checked where no wheat was
found and when he was asked to provide the record with regard to the receipt
and disbursement of wheat from May, 2016 to October, 2016, in spite of
repeated requests, such record was withheld. On the other hand, the
complaint-villagers produced their ration cards on the analysis of which it
was found that the petitioner had misappropriated about 18 quintals 90 kgs
of wheat which was supposed to be distributed to ration card holders.
Seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner, learned counsel
submits that there is a delay in lodging of the FIR; that the petitioner is ready
to join investigation and that the present case has been lodged against him as
1 of 2
08-04-2017 00:30:35 :::
The petitioner is a depot holder who is required to distribute
wheat to ration card holders on subsidized price. Investigations done till
date have shown that he has misappropriated 18 quintals 90 kgs of wheat.
He has also not cooperated with the investigating agency as even after
repeated requests, he has withheld relevant record from the authorities. The
plea that the present case has been lodged against the petitioner as a counter-
blast, is absolutely vague as no motive is shown to falsely implicate the
Whether the petitioner has indulged in misappropriation of
wheat to be distributed amongst ration card holders by selling the same in
black/open market for the period beyond what is being investigated, is
required to be probed. The record which has been withheld by the petitioner
also needs to be recovered.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion, that the present case
is not a fit one for the grant of anticipatory bail.
Nothing observed herein-above shall be considered to be an
expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case.
27.03.2017 [ DEEPAK SIBAL ]
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
2 of 2
08-04-2017 00:30:36 :::