- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
(2.) PETITIONER , who is accused for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grand of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case against the petitioner is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact, no offence under Section 406, IPC can be made out against the petitioner for the simple reason that the property alleged to have been misappropriate actually belongs to the petitioner. Rather, this is a case of purely civil nature inasmuch as the informant had granted loan to the petitioner 'sfirm for establishing business and for purchasing of plant and machinery. The firm of the petitioner has purchased plant and machinery and got the same installed within the factory premises and started production, but on account of financial constraints and required amount was not forthcoming from financial institutions, factor could not run properly and ultimately it had to be shut down. Later, the matter was informed by the petitioner to the informant financial institution to take necessary measure for revival of the factory, but they did not pay any heed to his request. Later, theft was committed in the factory premises in which substantial property was stolen away, in respect of which petitioner had filed FIR with the police and till, investigation has not completed. It is further submitted that since no property belonging to the informant was entrusted to the petitioner, loss of the article from the petitioner 'sfactory premises does not constitute any offence under Section 406, IPC.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that allegation against the petitioner is that he had removed entire plant and machinery from the factory, though knowing full well that the materials are hypothecated in favour of the informant financial institution.;