Jagtar Singh vs State of Haryana

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First Information Report, as detailed here-under :-

2 Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Rinku Kumar, Incharge/Inspector, District Food and Supplies Controller moved a complaint to the police alleging therein that during the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26, 39373.75 quintals of paddy were allotted to M/s Chaudhary Rice Mill, Neemwala, owner of which is accused, for custom milling and later, physical verification of the said mill was conducted by the team and quantity of the paddy was found to be correct. He further alleged that on 17.03.2026 again physical verification of the said mill was conducted by the team and approximately 24318.75 quintals of paddy, whose estimated value as per MSP would be approximately Rs.58,097,493/-, was found less in the mill.

On the basis of above complaint, present FIR under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered against accused. During investigation, the relevant documents, including the license of the said mill, the copy of agreement and physical verification report, were taken into possession. Thereafter, Section 316 (2) of BNS was deleted and Section 316 (5) of BNS was added in the case. On 19.03.2026, co-accused Bhajan Singh was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. Thereafter, the physical verification of mill of this co-accused was again conducted in his presence and 33122.25 quintals of paddy, was found less in the mill. Thereafter, relevant record/registers of the mill were taken into possession. He also got recovered Rs.5,00,000/-, inventory of currency notes was prepared and the same were taken into possession by the police. The relevant bank account statements were also obtained from bank concerned. The record including bills etc. regarding purchase of paddy by the said mill from other agents/farmers was also taken into possession. After completion of investigation, challan against co-accused Bhajan Singh was submitted in the Court for his trial. As per police reply, rice amounting to Rs.2,41,90,407/-was found to be sold by accused to Shiv Shakti Rice & General Mills, Krishna Foods, Bhim Sain Trading, M/s Maa Bala Sundri Trading Co., Pooja Rice & General Mills, Shree Krishana Foods, Vikas Trading Co., Bajrang Bali Exports and Shree Raj Kumar Foods etc. During furtherinvestigation, it came to the notice of the police authority that on 18.10.2025, an agreement was executed between District Food and Supplies Controller and Chaudhary Rice Mill Neemwala and during the Kharif Marketing Season 2025-26, 38373.75 quintals of paddy were allotted to the firm of Chaudhary Rice Mill Neemwala for custom milling and at that time, accused has furnished the security bond. Further as per police reply, other co-accused are yet to be arrested in this case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the alleged fraud is assumed to have been committed by the named accused in the FIR, who had entered into the agreement with the petitioner, the petitioner, neither being named in the FIR nor alleged to have derived any monetary benefit, cannot be placed on the same footing as the principal accused.

It is further submitted that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he furnished a guarantee of Rs.1.00 crore by way of two security cheques of Rs.50.00 lakhs each. Due to the alleged fraud committed by the main accused, who was carrying on business in the neighbourhood of the petitioner's establishment, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'NI Act'), have already been initiated against the petitioner on account of dishonour of the said cheques.

At best, the complainant agency may seek recovery of the amount by resorting to appropriate civil proceedings against the petitioner. However, by no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be treated at par with the other co-accused, who are alleged to be the actual beneficiaries of the defrauded amount.

It is also submitted that proceedings for recovery against the property of the petitioner have already been initiated under the relevant land revenue laws.

On the other hand, learned State counsel could not dispute the factual assertions addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that the petitioner was in active connivance with the main accused in causing loss to the public exchequer. He further submits that out of the total allotted quantity of 39,373.75 quintals of paddy, shortage of 33,122.25 quintals was ultimately detected during investigation.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

Admittedly, proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act, have already been initiated against the petitioner in respect of the dishonoured security cheques. It is also not disputed that recovery proceedings against the property of the petitioner have already been initiated under the relevant land revenue laws. It is further an admitted position that the petitioner was not initially named as an accused in the FIR, nor is there any allegation that he received any monetary gain from the alleged transaction.

Whether the petitioner stands on the same footing as the principal accused so far as his criminal culpability is concerned, or is liable to be excluded from the array of accused, is an issue which shall be examined at the appropriate stage of the trial.

Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Consequently, petitioner is directed to join the investigation for the additional added offence, within two weeks from today, or as and when called by the investigating agency, and in the eventuality of the arrest, petitioner would be released on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over his passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if he possesses. Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that he does not possess any passport.

It is also directed that before leaving country any time during trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.

With the directions issued here above, present petition stands disposed of.

Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.