JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - Tersely, the facts and material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail and emanating from the record, are that the petitioner had set up a rice sheller in the name and style of M/s Jagmohan Enterprises, in village Bhattian, District Gurdaspur. He was granted the approval for allotment of 5000 metric tons of paddy for shelling in his sheller. Consequently, he has executed an agreement dated 04.11.2012 (Annexure P3) in this regard with the complainant, Controller of Food & Supply of Pungrain, Punjab (for brevity “the complainant”). In pursuance thereof, 1,90,800 bags (66780 quintals of paddy) were supplied to the petitioner for milling, during the crop year 2012-13. On 14.2.2013, the committee of Pungrain conducted the physical verification of the premises of sheller of the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not shell/de-husk the paddy, so, it was decided to shift the paddy from the premises of his sheller to M/s Vaishnu Rice Mills for its shelling. On physical verification, 3410 bags of paddy were found to be of the previous year, whereas 1288 bags were recovered in old bags (Bardana). On the basis of the report of the Committee, the shifting of paddy was stopped. Subsequently, on physical verification, it revealed that the petitioner has embezzled 83348 bags of paddy and bags (Bardana), causing a huge loss in crores to the complainant Pungrain. 2. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in the FIR, in all, according to the prosecution that instead of shelling, the petitioner has misappropriated 83348 bags of paddy, bags (Bardana) and caused the loss of Rs.5 crores to the public exchequer. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of complainant, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner, vide FIR No. 19 dated 28.02.2013 (Annexure P5), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC by the police of Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. Having exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now petitioner Jagmohan Singh son of Chanchal Singh has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail, in the indicated criminal case in this Court. 4. 3. Having exercised his right of bail and remained unsuccessful before the Additional Sessions Judge, now petitioner Jagmohan Singh son of Chanchal Singh has preferred the instant petition, for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail, in the indicated criminal case in this Court. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition for anticipatory bail in this context. 5. Ex facie, the arguments of learned counsel that the dispute is purely of civil nature, the indicated amount can be recovered from the petitioner by adopting civil process and since he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police, so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that the petitioner has misappropriated 83348 bags of paddy, bags (Bardana) and caused huge loss of Rs.5 crores to the public exchequer, as claimed by the prosecution. Meaning thereby, very direct and serious allegations of pointed grave and heinous offences are assigned to the petitioner. The police has yet to interrogate him and to collect evidence. Sequelly, the argument that the impugned amount can be recovered from him by adopting civil process, sans merit. As indicated here-in-above, there are direct allegations against him of cheating and misappropriation of the bags in question. In that eventuality, he cannot escape from criminal liability, in view of ratio of law laid down by this Court in Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, [2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2753] : 2012(3) RCR(Criminal) 632 and Satpal and another v. State of Punjab 2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2385. 7. Therefore, considering the seriousness of indicated allegations of the offences in question, to me, custodial interrogation of petitioner is necessary. In case, he is allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police would be deprived to, ascertain the modus operandi, his involvement in other such cases, to unearth the scam, recover huge pointed bags of paddy/amount, other case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Moreover, possibility of petitioner to flee from justice cannot be ruled out at this stage. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Moreover, possibility of petitioner to flee from justice cannot be ruled out at this stage. Therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. Above-all, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the main accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the indicated seriousness of allegations of cheating & misappropriation of the bags in question against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for prearrest bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such. 10. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————