Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47530 (PNJ)

MOHIT KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/20804/2025 · 2025-07-15

Manjari Nehru Kaul

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA 215 MOHIT KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. 1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioner in case FIR No. 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 District Karnal 2. petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case allegations levelled against him are has been submitted that quintals of rice was available at the the allegation Rice (CMR) misleading. 3. petitioner that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of decision: MOHIT KUMAR Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Mr. Sahil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G., Haryana. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.667 dated 09.11.2024 Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Karnal (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case ns levelled against him are wholly has been submitted that as on 30.09.2024, a physical stock of 3687.3 quintals of rice was available at the rice mill of the petitioner the allegation regarding a shortage of 5025.425 quintals of custom Milled Rice (CMR), as alleged by the complainant It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the that the petitioner had deposited a sum of IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -M-20804-2025 Date of decision: July 15, 2025 .....Petitioner .....Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL A.G., Haryana. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of for grant of anticipatory bail to 09.11.2024 under Sections 406 and , registered at Police Station Gharaunda, Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case, and that the misconceived and untenable. It as on 30.09.2024, a physical stock of 3687.300 rice mill of the petitioner, and therefore, a shortage of 5025.425 quintals of custom Milled complainant, is factually incorrect and It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the deposited a sum of Rs.15 lakhs through a Petitioner .....Respondent The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of for grant of anticipatory bail to 406 and , that the , and that the t 00 , and therefore, a shortage of 5025.425 quintals of custom Milled is factually incorrect and It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the Rs.15 lakhs through a Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20804 legitimate bank transfer to the concerned Department on 30.11.2024 security towards the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), thereby bona fide intent. question, as per Clause 30 of the Custom Milling (CMR Policy) However, the Department guarantor/surety, one Ved clause. In support, learned counsel has the Policy, which has been annexed as Annexure P 4. submitted forged property documents erroneous, as no such documents were ever demanded the Department. petitioner on a valid lease basis, which is duly permissible under Clause 27(IV) of the CMR Policy, thereby entitling him to participate in the milling operations. 5. that the mill of the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the allocated rice stock to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), and that of the remaining stock was damaged due to unprecedent 21.08.2024. The said incident was immediately reported to the concerned Department, and as per the learned counsel, any shortfall in delivery must be viewed in that 20804-2025 legitimate bank transfer to the concerned Department on 30.11.2024 security towards the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), thereby intent. Learned counsel has further argued that the F question, as per Clause 30 of the Custom Milling (CMR Policy), was required to be taken from the miller i.e. the petitioner. However, the Department arbitrarily obtained the FDR fro guarantor/surety, one Ved Prakash, contrary to the provisions of the said clause. In support, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Policy, which has been annexed as Annexure P Learned counsel has also asserted that the allegation forged property documents for all erroneous, as no such documents were ever demanded the Department. Furthermore, the rice mill was being operated by the petitioner on a valid lease basis, which is duly permissible under Clause 27(IV) of the CMR Policy, thereby entitling him to participate in the milling Learned counsel for the petitioner has still further contended that the mill of the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the allocated rice stock to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), and that of the remaining stock was damaged due to unprecedent 21.08.2024. The said incident was immediately reported to the concerned Department, and as per the learned counsel, any shortfall in delivery must be that light. Learned counsel has also submitted that -2- legitimate bank transfer to the concerned Department on 30.11.2024 as security towards the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), thereby evidencing his Learned counsel has further argued that the FDR in question, as per Clause 30 of the Custom Milling of Rice Policy en from the miller i.e. the petitioner. arbitrarily obtained the FDR from the contrary to the provisions of the said drawn the attention of this Court to Policy, which has been annexed as Annexure P-4. so asserted that the allegation of having for allocation of milling work is erroneous, as no such documents were ever demanded or requisitioned by Furthermore, the rice mill was being operated by the petitioner on a valid lease basis, which is duly permissible under Clause 27(IV) of the CMR Policy, thereby entitling him to participate in the milling or the petitioner has still further contended that the mill of the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the allocated rice stock to the Food Corporation of India (FCI), and that a significant portion of the remaining stock was damaged due to unprecedented heavy rainfall on 21.08.2024. The said incident was immediately reported to the concerned Department, and as per the learned counsel, any shortfall in delivery must be Learned counsel has also submitted that ironically, the as his R in of Rice Policy en from the miller i.e. the petitioner. m the contrary to the provisions of the said drawn the attention of this Court to of having is y Furthermore, the rice mill was being operated by the petitioner on a valid lease basis, which is duly permissible under Clause 27(IV) of the CMR Policy, thereby entitling him to participate in the milling or the petitioner has still further contended that the mill of the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the allocated rice a significant portion ed heavy rainfall on 21.08.2024. The said incident was immediately reported to the concerned Department, and as per the learned counsel, any shortfall in delivery must be the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20804 complainant quintals of rice allegations of complete misappropriation. 6. the pendency of the present FIR and the resultant investigation, the operations of the petitioner’s ric causing severe financial stress to him. 7. Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, Karnal on behalf of the respondent State has been filed in the Registry of this record subject to all just exceptions. 8. prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. It has been by the learned State counsel serious and grave in nature, involving large scale misappropriation of Government stock amounting to approximately Rs.2 9. petitioner failed to deliver the requisite quantity of rice after having received paddy from HAFED under the CMR agreement. Specifically 6458.990 quintals of rice due from the petitioner, only a partial delivery was made, with 20804-2025 complainant itself issued an e-auction notice for disposal of 3687.300 quintals of rice still lying in the petitioner’s mill, which contradicts the allegations of complete misappropriation. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the pendency of the present FIR and the resultant investigation, the operations of the petitioner’s rice mill have been brought to a grinding halt causing severe financial stress to him. Status report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, Karnal on behalf of the respondent has been filed in the Registry of this Court and the same is taken subject to all just exceptions. Per contra, learned State counsel prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. It has been by the learned State counsel that the allegat serious and grave in nature, involving large scale misappropriation of Government stock, resulting in substantial loss to the public exchequer, amounting to approximately Rs.2.66 crores. It has also been submitted by the petitioner failed to deliver the requisite quantity of rice after having received paddy from HAFED under the CMR agreement. Specifically 6458.990 quintals of rice due from the petitioner, only a partial delivery was approximately 5025.425 quintals -3- notice for disposal of 3687.300 petitioner’s mill, which contradicts the Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the pendency of the present FIR and the resultant investigation, the e mill have been brought to a grinding halt, tatus report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gharaunda, Karnal on behalf of the respondent- Court and the same is taken on State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. It has been submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature, involving large scale misappropriation of resulting in substantial loss to the public exchequer, It has also been submitted by the learned State counsel that the petitioner failed to deliver the requisite quantity of rice after having received paddy from HAFED under the CMR agreement. Specifically, of the 6458.990 quintals of rice due from the petitioner, only a partial delivery was quintals remaining unaccounted for. notice for disposal of 3687.300 petitioner’s mill, which contradicts the Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that due to the pendency of the present FIR and the resultant investigation, the , tatus report by way of an affidavit of the Deputy - on vehemently opposed the submitted ions against the petitioner are serious and grave in nature, involving large scale misappropriation of resulting in substantial loss to the public exchequer, learned State counsel that the petitioner failed to deliver the requisite quantity of rice after having received , of the 6458.990 quintals of rice due from the petitioner, only a partial delivery was for. Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20804 This unexplained misappropriation. 10. fraudulently concealed the material fact that he had already sold in the year 2022, which was not disclosed at the time of entering into the milling agreement, thereby inducing the Department into allocating the milling work under false pretenses. 11. had dishonestly pledged an invalid FDR dated 23.10.2023 in favour of HAFED. The fraudulent nature of this pledge only came to light when the complainant attempted to encash the FDR and was informed that it was not validly pledged in accordanc 12. relevant material placed on record. 13. grave in nature, misrepresentation of material facts and allegedly resulted in substantial financial loss to the public exchequer. 14. HAFED for the milling of paddy, was entrusted Government stock. 5025.425 quintals of rice, as well as the allegations of submission of misleading property 20804-2025 This unexplained shortfall is alleged to be a result of willful misappropriation. Learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner fraudulently concealed the material fact that he had already sold in the year 2022, which was not disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement, thereby inducing the Department into allocating the milling work under false pretenses. Learned State counsel has still further alleged that t had dishonestly pledged an invalid FDR dated 23.10.2023 in favour of HAFED. The fraudulent nature of this pledge only came to light when the complainant attempted to encash the FDR and was informed that it was not validly pledged in accordance with banking procedure. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material placed on record. The allegations against the petitioner are not only serious and in nature, but prima facie misrepresentation of material facts and fraudulent conduct, which has allegedly resulted in substantial financial loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner, having entered into a formal agreement for the milling of paddy, was entrusted Government stock. The alleged failure to account for 5025.425 quintals of rice, as well as the allegations of submission of property documents and dishonest -4- shortfall is alleged to be a result of willful Learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner fraudulently concealed the material fact that he had already sold the rice mill in the year 2022, which was not disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement, thereby inducing the Department into allocating the Learned State counsel has still further alleged that the petitioner had dishonestly pledged an invalid FDR dated 23.10.2023 in favour of HAFED. The fraudulent nature of this pledge only came to light when the complainant attempted to encash the FDR and was informed that it was not e with banking procedure. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The allegations against the petitioner are not only serious and suggest active concealment, fraudulent conduct, which has allegedly resulted in substantial financial loss to the public exchequer. The petitioner, having entered into a formal agreement with for the milling of paddy, was entrusted with a large quantity of The alleged failure to account for approximately 5025.425 quintals of rice, as well as the allegations of submission of dishonest pledging of an FDR, raise shortfall is alleged to be a result of willful Learned State counsel has further contended that the petitioner the rice mill in the year 2022, which was not disclosed at the time of entering into the agreement, thereby inducing the Department into allocating the he petitioner had dishonestly pledged an invalid FDR dated 23.10.2023 in favour of HAFED. The fraudulent nature of this pledge only came to light when the complainant attempted to encash the FDR and was informed that it was not I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the The allegations against the petitioner are not only serious and t, fraudulent conduct, which has with with a large quantity of approximately 5025.425 quintals of rice, as well as the allegations of submission of raise Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20804 concerns that go to the very root of the public trust and the integrity of Governmental procurement processes. 15. the rice and that the remaining stock was damaged due to rainfall does not satisfactorily Further, the issuance of an e itself exonerate the petitioner from explaining the alleged discrepancy between the received and delivered quantities. 16. mill, the submissions made by the learned State counsel that the mill had been sold in the year 2022 remains uncontroverted at this stage. The contradiction between the claim of the petitioner of lawful possession and the alleged sale of the rice petitioner’s disclosures. 17. does not absolve the petitioner from the liability, especially itself was not validly pledged and 18. is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in the cases, where the allegations reflect misuse of public resources, breach of trust, and possibl economic offences of a serious nature. 19. Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory 20804-2025 concerns that go to the very root of the public trust and the integrity of Governmental procurement processes. The contention that the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the rice and that the remaining stock was damaged due to rainfall does not satisfactorily explain the magnitude of the alleged shortage Further, the issuance of an e-auction notice for the itself exonerate the petitioner from explaining the alleged discrepancy between the received and delivered quantities. As to the claim that the petitioner had legally leased mill, the submissions made by the learned State counsel that the mill had in the year 2022 remains uncontroverted at this stage. The contradiction between the claim of the petitioner of lawful possession and the alleged sale of the rice mill casts serious doubt on the veracity of the petitioner’s disclosures. Moreover, the plea regarding irregularities in FDR collection does not absolve the petitioner from the liability, especially itself was not validly pledged and failed upon invocation. It is settled law that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in the cases, where the allegations reflect misuse of public resources, breach of trust, and possibl economic offences of a serious nature. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory -5- concerns that go to the very root of the public trust and the integrity of The contention that the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the rice and that the remaining stock was damaged due to rainfall does not explain the magnitude of the alleged shortage, at this stage. auction notice for the leftover stock does not itself exonerate the petitioner from explaining the alleged discrepancy between the received and delivered quantities. As to the claim that the petitioner had legally leased the rice mill, the submissions made by the learned State counsel that the mill had in the year 2022 remains uncontroverted at this stage. The contradiction between the claim of the petitioner of lawful possession and mill casts serious doubt on the veracity of the Moreover, the plea regarding irregularities in FDR collection does not absolve the petitioner from the liability, especially when the FDR failed upon invocation. settled law that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in the cases, where the allegations reflect misuse of public resources, breach of trust, and possible In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the extraordinary concession of anticipatory concerns that go to the very root of the public trust and the integrity of The contention that the petitioner had already delivered 67% of the rice and that the remaining stock was damaged due to rainfall does not at this stage. leftover stock does not itself exonerate the petitioner from explaining the alleged discrepancy the rice mill, the submissions made by the learned State counsel that the mill had in the year 2022 remains uncontroverted at this stage. The contradiction between the claim of the petitioner of lawful possession and mill casts serious doubt on the veracity of the Moreover, the plea regarding irregularities in FDR collection the FDR settled law that the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine, particularly in the cases, where the e In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-20804 bail to the petitioner as the allegations involve serious economic offence, for which his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the larger conspiracy. 20. 21. shall not be construed to be an expression of op case. July 15, 2025 Jaspreet Kaur 20804-2025 bail to the petitioner as the allegations involve serious economic offence, for which his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the larger Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of op July 15, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable -6- bail to the petitioner as the allegations involve serious economic offence, for which his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the larger Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No bail to the petitioner as the allegations involve serious economic offence, for which his custodial interrogation may be necessary to unearth the larger However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove inion on the merits of the Jaspreet Kaur 2025.07.16 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh