Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/37169/2026 of HARPREET SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 13 July 2026
(O&M) dishonestly and illegally removed complainant’s stock i.e. four cartons/boxes of Hazardous fumigation substances from the premises of Flying Trade India Ltd. Jalandhar. The goods were dishonestly removed, misappropriated and illegally disposed of /sold without any authority,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-37169 of 2026 (O&M) dishonestly and illegally removed complainant’s stock i.e. four cartons/boxes of Hazardous fumigation substances from the premises of Flying Trade India Ltd. Jalandhar. The goods were dishonestly removed, misappropriated and illegally disposed of/sold without any authority, consent or knowledge of the complainant to one Harpreet, stated to be residing in Amritsar, in active connivance and conspiracy with Raman who facilitated the transportation and delivery of the said material. Raman accompanied Kapil and Chandan and used his vehicle Activa bearing registration number PB-08-FR-6764 for carrying and transporting the goods. Stolen goods i.e. Methyl Bromide and Aluminium Phosphide were hazardous in nature and were used in regulated pest control/fumigation processes. Their unauthorised possession, transportation, sale and misuse posed grave risk to public health and safety and could endanger human life if improperly handled, stored, sold or used. The value of dishonestly removed and illegally sold goods was approximately Rs.1,10,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been falsely implicated and had nothing to do with the offence. Police had raided his premises but nothing could be recovered. There was 7 days delay in lodging of the FIR. Though the occurrence took place on 21.05.2026, the matter was not reported to the police till 28.05.2026. There was no basis for naming the petitioner in FIR. Petitioner had clean antecedents and had no connection with co-accused. He was neither a servant nor clerk of the complainant, therefore section 306 BNS was not attracted. Even Section 316(2) BNS was not made out against the petitioner as there was no REEMA SAINI
CRM-M-37169 of 2026 (O&M) entrustment to him. All offences were triable by Court of Magistrate and petitioner deserved to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions ASI Rajinder Singh, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that there was CCTV footage showing complicity of co-accused Kapil and Chandan committing theft of four cartons of Hazardous chemicals. Name of the petitioner was revealed by co-accused, during investigation. Petitioner was named in the FIR as receiver of stolen goods and recoveries were to be effected.
5. Concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted as matter of course or routine as it may adversely effect the investigation to be conducted by the police. In the present case, allegations against the petitioner are serious. He is alleged to have received the stolen hazardous chemicals from the co-accused. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential for effecting the recoveries and for eliciting information regarding the modus operandi and previous transaction of similar nature. There are no exceptional circumstances made out for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.
6. Dismissed. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)
JUDGE 13.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No REEMA SAINI