Devinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Devinder Singh has brought this petition under the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.99 dated 14.7.2011 at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur for an offence punishable u/s 406 of Indian Penal Code.

It is a case where the petitioner is alleged to have purchased buffalos worth Rs. 17.35 lacs on the guarantee of the complainant, Kuldeep Singh. The complainant has claimed that the petitioner purchased the buffalos without paying their price on the guarantee of the complainant to the owners of his paying the money later on. The petitioner is claimed to be a trader in buffalos.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no written agreement of purchase of buffalos by the petitioner. According to him, while giving buffalos worth Rs. 17.35 lacs to the petitioner, no document was got written. He has submitted that the facts, even if taken at their face value, would not attract the provisions of section 405 IPC defining criminal breach of trust.

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that the statement of nine persons have been recorded by the investigating officer, who had sold their buffalos to the petitioner on credit on the guarantee of the complainant and that no payment has been made so far in this case.

In case of such transactions, documents are seldom prepared. The police has recorded statements of nine persons who had given their buffalos on the guarantee of the complainant. The petitioner has not paid even a single penny towards the price of the buffalos and the price of the buffalos is not a small amount. This shows that either the petitioner did not have the intention to pay the amount from the very beginning or he had subsequently developed the intention of not paying the amount. The court on submission of the challan would find out if it is a case of cheating or misappropriation of the amount. From the facts, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.