Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-3767 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 25, 2012.
Malkeet Singh
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G., Punjab.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No.1 dated 01.01.2012 under Sections 420 and 406 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur dismissing anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 22.2.2012 passed the following order:-
"Crl.M.No.8013 of 2012 CRM No.M-3767 of 2012 2
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-3767 of 2012 Contends that dispute between the parties is civil in nature and that in fact there is dispute as to how much rice is to be delivered by the Firm, of which petitioner is one of the partners to the FCI, as per the various circulars issued by said Agency and the FCI. Further contends that in that regard writ petition was also filed by the firm, which is Annexure P3, in which order, Annexure P4 has been passed by this Court staying recovery of alleged loss of FCI till further orders and that the said writ petition is still pending. Further contends that another partner of petitioner-firm who used to look after the affairs of the firm has already been arrested in this case and released on regular bail.
Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab, for 16.3.2012.
However, in the meantime, petitioner is directed to join the investigation and in case he is arrested, he shall be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already joined the investigation pursuant to said order dated 22.2.2012.
It has also been stated by learned counsel for the State that petitioner has joined the investigation and that he is no more required for any custodial interrogation.
There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. CRM No.M-3767 of 2012 3
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Malkeet Singh, is accepted and order dated 22.2.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 25, 2012. JUDGE Sachin M.