VIJAY KUMAR @ TINA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for grant of pre arrest bail in FIR No. 130 dated 22.7.2013 for offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act ( for short "the Act") (offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC added later), registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala.

(2.) Notice of the application was given to the State of Punjab. Counsel for the petitioner contends that initially the case was registered under Section 7 of the Act but offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC are added later just to aggravate culpability of the accused. Vijay Kumar @ Tina has nothing to do with the affairs of M/s Major Oil Dealer, which is the business concern of Major Singh, a resident of Patiala. It is further submitted that as per allegations in the FIR, there is no agreement/transaction between Major Singh and the petitioner that he would manage the affairs of M/s Major Oil Dealer. It is further argued that as per documents appended with the petition, Major Singh executed an agreement for renting Plot No. 4, owned by Rattan Lal Bansal, father-in-law of the petitioner, in April 2012. Major Singh submitted an application in March 2013 seeking permission for storing kerosene in drums as per storing licence 'J'. In August 2011, Indian Oil Corporation conducted surprise inspection of M/s Major Oil Dealer, Bahadurgarh, as per document Annexure P-11 and the petitioner was not found there at the time of inspection. Prior thereto, in the year 2009, a DDR was lodged by Major Singh with regard to leakage of oil measuring 3000 liters approximately.

(3.) The licence of M/s Major Oil Dealer was renewed for a period of one year up to 31.12.2013 in the name of Major Singh. Relying upon these documents, counsel has argued with vehemence that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, who is not running the business of M/s Major Oil Dealer.