Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-47470-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47470-2024
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Pronounced on: 28.10.2024
Yadwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Sandeep Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
275 02.08.2022 City Ferozepur 409, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC
(Amendment) Act, 2018
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 2 of the custody certificate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 169 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC Sadar Ferozepur
Act
2. 277 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC City Ferozepur
Act
3. 276 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC and 13 of PC City Ferozepur
Act
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:-
"4. That in furtherance of Letter No. DFS-STRG-
015/26/2022 STORAGE/748, dated 22-06-2022, the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Ferozepur Division, vide Letter no. DDF. 2022/223, dated 20-06-2022 and DDF/2022/242, dated 28-06-2022 had initiated the Inter-District Physical verification of Wheat Stock of Pungrain for the quarter ending 30-06-2022 at different godown and for this purpose various teams were Jyoti Sharma constituted to verify the stock maintained at various godowns.
2024.10.28 17:25 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-47470-2024 In this process, a team led by Sh. Harpreet Singh, Asst. Food and Civil Supplies officer, Nihal Singh wala reached at one of the storage site known M/s Sonu Chawla Covered Godown, border road, ferozepur city Plinth on 27-07-2022. After dissectioning and re-scating of bags, the deficiency of 620 wheat bags (50 kg bag each) total weight 310 Qtl. was detected. The stock was misappropriated by the officials/ Inspectors of the department for their personal benefit and thereby the State has to suffer a loss of Rs. 7,15,000/-. The Committee had suspicion that the loss may rise with the evacuation of entire stock but prima facie the loss assessed was of Rs.7,15,000/-."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"7. That the service record of the accused have been obtained and it is not at all in dispute that the Petitioner was posted as Inspector at Ferozepur Centre and was appointed as Joint custodian of the stock maintained by the department (PUNGRAIN) at their Godowns and Storage sites. Further the shortage of a huge quantity of wheat measuring 310 Qtl is almost admitted by the petitioner and other co- accused. But the petitioner took a particular stand that the loss of shortage was inevitable by weather or rotten by animals or in some cases it was stolen by miscreants. But all the claims of the Petitioner are in complete contrast with the facts emerged during Physical verification. The stock was dishonestly misappropriated by all the accused which was in complete knowledge of the Petitioner and their liability is joint."
7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, per paragraph 6 of the status report, the petitioner has been in custody since 07.08.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 15.10.2024, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 02 months and 13 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
8. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.28 17:25 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-47470-2024
9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
10. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.
13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
14. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.10.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.28 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3