Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yadwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-47200-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-47200-2024
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
0169 02.08.2022 Sadar, Ferozepur, 409/120-B IPC and 13 of the PC Act
District Ferozepur
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. In paragraph 27 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents, however as per custody certificate, petitioner has following criminal
antecedents:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 275 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC City Ferozepur
2. 277 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC City Ferozepur
3. 276 02.08.2022 409, 120-B IPC City Ferozepur
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-47200-2024
constituted to verify the stock maintained at various godowns.
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 Pawan Kumar & Co- owners Open
Plinth on 31-07-2022. During dissection of stack no. 55, 56 and 57
it was found that 410 wooden crates were artificially created in
order to wrongfully fill the shortage. The outer formation stack
was properly maintained but inside of sections, the bags were
missing which was made intentionally. After dissectioning and re-
scating of bags, the deficiency of 6569 wheat bags (30 kg bag
each) total weight 1970 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. 44-00 lakh. The Committee had suspicion that the loss may rise
with the evacuation of entire stock but prima facie the loss
assessed was of Rs. 44-00 Lakh."
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 1970 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. The culpability of the Petitioner is evident from the artificial
wooden crates inserted to fill the empty place of racks at storage
cites which was made by the accused in connivance with each
other.
8. That during investigation, statement of officials of
PUNGRAIN namely i) Harpreet Singh s/o Gurlal Singh Assistant
Food Supplies officer head of team ii) Mandeep Singh Inspector
Nihal Singh wala, iii) Inspector NitishGarg, Badhni Kalan iv)
Inspector Atul Goyal c/o Punjgrain Office, Moga have been
recorded who established the Physical Verification report under
investigation and proved the shortage of wheat stock at M/s
Pawan Kumar and co-owners Open Plinth which was in the joint
custody of all the accused named above. The record of the
Pungrain with regard to the Stock in dispute was taken. The gate
passes of relevant period proved that the during Crop Year 2022-
2023 the quantity of 292353 bags (30 kg each) were stored in the
said premises out of which the inspecting team detected the
wrongful shortage of 6569 bags and thereby the State exchequer
suffered a financial loss of Rs. 44-00 lakh."
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-47200-2024
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. 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.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-47200-2024
15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
28.10.2024 (ANOOP CHITKARA)
Jyoti Sharma JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
