1

                                NON -REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 998   OF 2018 @ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.9196 OF 2017)

Arvind Tiwary        ……Appellant

Versus

State of Bihar and Another        ..….Respondents With

Criminal Appeal No.996  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9029 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.997  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9043 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.999  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9246 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1026  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9334 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1019  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9312 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1020   of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9409 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1021  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9405 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1022   of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9406 of 2017)

2

Criminal Appeal No.1000  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9904 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1001  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9664 of 2017)

Criminal Appeal No.1002  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1283 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1003  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1238 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1004   of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1192 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1023  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1252 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1024  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1286 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1025  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1239 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1005  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1327 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1006  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1568 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1007  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2966 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1008  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3107 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1009  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3087 of 2018)

3

Criminal Appeal No.1010  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3064 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1011  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3041 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1012  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3238 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1013  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.3814 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1014  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.4116 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1015  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5128 of 2018)

Criminal Appeal No. 1017  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.6707 of 2018 (D.No.25551/2018)

Criminal Appeal No.1016  of 2018 @ (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5870 of 2018)

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

 Leave granted in all the matters.

2. Since  similar  questions  arise  in  all  these  matters,  they  are  being

disposed of by this common Judgment. The matters can be broadly classified

in three categories.  We have taken Criminal  Appeal  arising from Special

Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9196 of 2017, Criminal Appeal arising from Special

4

Leave Petition (Crl.)  No.9029 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal  arising from

Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  No.9409  of  2017  to  be  the  lead  matters

representing each of those three categories.  The facts leading to the filing of

said appeals are set out in detail hereunder:-

A. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl) No.9196 of 2017

3. Under  an  agreement  dated  29.03.2014  entered  into  between  the

appellant  and  Bihar  State  Food  and  Civil  Supplies  Corporation  Ltd.

(hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) the appellant undertook to mill

paddy procured from District  Office of the Corporation as per terms and

conditions mentioned in the agreement.  Clause 2 of the agreement was as

under:

“That the Second Party with a monthly milling capacity of 400 MT of paddy shall furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to  the  value  of  paddy  issued  to  him  by  the  First  Party  for milling in  the current  procurement season and in case,  he is issued an additional quantity of paddy for milling he shall to furnish an additional bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the amount of the additional paddy issued to him by the First Party.   In  case  he  is  not  capable  of  furnishing  the  above mentioned  bank  guarantee(s),  he  shall  pledge  unencumbered immovable property belonging to him in the name of District Manager, Kaimur of the same amount or more, as certified by the competent authority Circle Officer/Sub-Divisional Officer. In the prescribed manner, for the entire value of paddy as per his  milling  capacity.   However  it  will  be  mandatory  for  the

5

Second Party to provide a minimum bank guarantee as per the milling capacity enumerated in the table below: Sl.No. Milling Capacity Minimum

Manadtory  Bank Guarantee

1 UP to 2 MT per hour Rs.5 lakh 2 More than 2 MT and upto 5 MT

per hour Rs.10 lakh

3 More than 5 MT per hour

The  said  bank  guarantee  of  Rs.  Five  Lakh  Rupees (amount  in  words)  issued in  favour  of  the  District  Manager, Bihar State Food & Civil  Supplies Corporation Ltd.,  Kaimur vide  Serial  No.  at  BG  No.2696IG-002214  issued  by  P.N.B. Bank  Akerhi  Branch  Mohania,  Kaimur  District  has  been submitted by the Second Party.”

4. The  appellant  had  thus  undertaken  to  furnish  bank  guarantee

equivalent to the value of paddy issued to him.  As per the concerned clause,

in case the appellant was unable to furnish such bank guarantee, he could

pledge unencumbered immovable property belonging to him in favour of the

Corporation for the equivalent sum.  In addition it was mandatory for the

appellant to provide a minimum bank guarantee as per the milling capacity.

Accordingly  a  bank guarantee  on that  count  in  the  sum of  Rupees  Five

Lakhs was furnished.

5. The  procurement  season  in  terms  of  the  aforesaid  agreement  was

2013-14.   However,  it  is  the  case  of  the  Corporation  that  though  the

6

appellant was supplied 6000 quintals of paddy, he failed to return 3212.70

quintals  of  rice  amounting  to  Rs.79.62  lakhs  and  thus  the  appellant

misappropriated the aforementioned sum.  A first  information report  was

registered  on 02.04.2015 vide Bhabhua P.S.  Case  No.151 of  2015 under

Sections 409 and 420 of  the Indian Penal  Code.  The appellant  thereafter

approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna seeking anticipatory bail

which was granted to him vide order dated 30.07.2015.

B. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl) No.9029 of 2017

6. Under  an  agreement  dated  06.03.2013  entered  into  between  the

appellant and the Corporation, the appellant undertook to mill paddy lying at

Kaimur Centre of the Corporation in terms of the agreement.  Clauses 2 and

3 of the agreement were as under:

“2. The Second Party has monthly milling capacity of 1 ton of paddy but he has to furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the value  of  paddy  taken  by  him  for  milling  in  concerned procurement season and in case, he requires further quantity for paddy  for  milling,  he  has  to  furnish  further  bank  guarantee equivalent  to value of  paddy desired by him to be taken for milling.  However, he has to deliver C.M.R. in time before next lot of paddy is taken from him.  The said bank guarantee of  Rs. …….. issued in favour of District Manager, Bihar Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vide series No…….. dated ………. has  been  submitted  by  the  second  party  as  per  State Government Instruction from time to time.

7

3. The second party is at liberty to take paddy for milling as the quantity, he desired during the said procurement season in accordance with his monthly milling capacity but,  he has no further  bank guarantee for the value of the paddy, which, he takes for milling in case, he is not capable of furnishing bank guarantee, he had to pledge immovable property in the form of mortgage  bond  for  amount  or  he  can  pledge  immovable property for the entire value paddy which he takes for milling. The property details so mortgaged must be certified to be in his own name by the competent authority either by circle officer of the block or SDO of the concerned sub division so that in case of default of second party or any deviation of paddy may be recovered.”

According to the appellant since he had pledged his land valued at

Rs.1.3  cores  he  was  not  required  to  furnish  any  bank  guarantee.   The

procurement season for the aforesaid agreement was 2012-13.

7. On a written report that though the appellant had lifted entire quantity

of  paddy  by  31.12.2013  he  had  not  delivered  any  rice  in  terms  of  the

agreement  and  that  he  had  misappropriated  2401.48  quintals  of  rice

amounting  to  Rs.51.99  lakhs,  Kudra  P.S.  Case  No.119  of  2015  was

registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 409

and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. On an application moved by the appellant,

the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna  vide  judgment  and  order  dated

24.07.2015  granted  anticipatory  bail  to  the  appellant  subject  to  his

depositing  20% of  the  due  amount  within  six  weeks.   According  to  the

8

appellant, in compliance of such order the appellant deposited an amount of

Rs.10.42 lakhs vide DD dated 22.01.2016.

C. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl) No.9409 of 2017

8. Under  an  agreement  entered  into  between  the  appellant  and  the

Corporation on 11.2.2012 for the procurement season 2011-12,  the appellant

had undertaken to mill paddy lying at Bhabhua Centre of the Corporation on

delivery  of  rice  in  terms  of  the  agreement  Clauses  2,  3  and  4  of  the

agreement were as under:-

“2. After  delivery  of  rice  to  the Corporation  proportionate paddy will be issued to the miller by Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

3.  Rice will be accepted in the same Gunny bags in which the  paddy  is  delivered  by  the  Corporation.   For  the  first consignment/lot,  rice  will  be  delivered  by  the  miller  in  new SBT gunnies.  The excess gunny bags will be returned by the miller and if retrained by the Miller of excess gunny bags (in which  paddy  supplier  miller)  will  be  deducted  by  the Corporation @ 60% of net wages price from the bills submitted by the miller.

4.  The miller has already deposited Rs.50,000/- as security money through DD No.710733 dated 11.02.2012 of Rs. Fifty thousand in favour  of  District  Manager,  Bihar  State  Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.”

9

9. Since the rice was to be supplied at the time paddy would be given,

unlike  previous  two  illustrations,  no  bank  guarantee  or  pledge  was

contemplated but deposit in terms of Clause 4 as security was given.  On an

allegation that the appellant  was supplied 2306 quintals of  paddy for  the

procurement  year  2011-12  and  the  appellant  had  not  returned  1545.02

quintals of rice amounting to Rs.28.9 lakhs,  Kudra P.S. Case No.131 of

2015 was registered on 19.4.2015 for offences  under Sections 409 and 420

IPC.   The  appellant  was  granted  anticipatory  bail  by  the  High Court  of

Judicature at Patna on 16.07.2015.

10. Similar  orders  were passed granting anticipatory bail  to number of

persons against whom cases were filed by the Corporation.  Those orders

were questioned by filing special leave petitions by State of Bihar or the

Corporation.  These petitions came up before this Court on 28.02.2017 when

following order was passed by this Court:

“Heard.

Permission granted.  

Delay condoned.  

These  petitions  have  been  preferred  by  the  State  of Bihar/Bihar  State  Food  Civil  Supplies  Corporation  against orders granting anticipatory bail/bail, in connection with cases, the facts of which are identical.

10

It has been stated by Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel  appearing  for  the  State/Corporation,  that  a  sum  of Rupees  fifteen  hundred  crores  in  all  has  been  allegedly misappropriated by the accused for which 600 FIRs have been filed. According to the case of the State, agreements for milling of  paddy  were  entered  into  with  different  rice  mills  in pursuance of which paddy was handed over for milling but the rice from the milled paddy was not returned or was returned partly. Thus, there is misappropriation to a huge extent. In such circumstances,  grant  of  anticipatory  bail/bail  will  seriously hamper the investigation/trial resulting in huge loss to the State.

Our attention has been drawn to the Deed of Agreement. Clause 3 thereof provides for furnishing of bank guarantee for 26  the  value  of  paddy,  which  is  taken  for  milling,  or  for pledging of the immovable property of the value of the paddy. There is also provision in clause 12 that in case of default of terms of  agreement  the  bank guarantee  can  be  forfeited  and legal  action  initiated  for  recovery  of  the  amount  from  the mortgaged immovable property.  

The High Court has passed an order for deposit of 10 to 20 % of the amount, alleged to be involved in different cases for grant of bail/anticipatory bail.

Since  the  anticipatory  bail/bail  was  granted  more  than one year back and financial interest of the State is or can be secured, we are not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail/bail but  modify  the  order  of  granting  of  anticipatory  bail/bail conditional adding conditions as follows:  

(1) The  accused  in  all  the  FIR(s),  will  ensure  that  bank guarantee,  if  not  furnished,  is  furnished  and  if  lapsed,  is renewed within a period of one month from today failing which the anticipatory bail/bail granted will stand cancelled.  

(2) The accused will cooperate with investigation/trial and their failure  to  appear,  when  required,  will  be  a  ground  for cancellation of anticipatory bail/bail. An order of cancellation

11

will be passed by the trial court on being satisfied about such failure.

(3) The investigation will be completed within a period of three months.  

(4) All the accused will be tried only at five places viz. Patna, Gaya,  Chhapra,  Darbhanga and Purnia  by officers  of  the  27 appropriate rank determined by the High Court within one week from today. The High Court may specify the area of jurisdiction of the said five courts by a public order. If required by the High Court,  the  State  Government  may  sanction  extra  strength  of officers  with  requisite  infrastructure  so  that  normal  work  of courts is not disturbed on account of the special arrangement for these cases.  

(5) The officers posted will deal with these cases exclusively. If free from their work, any other work may be assigned to the said officers.  

(6) The concerned authorities will be at liberty to encash the bank guarantee(s)   after holding that there is a breach of terms of the agreement which decision will be subject to appropriate remedies of the parties.  

(7) If not otherwise encashed, the bank guarantee will be kept alive till the trial is over. However, deposits/furnishing of bank guarantees  will  be abide  by further  orders  of  the  trial  court, interim or final.  

(8) If any amount is deposited by the accused, the said amount will be adjusted in the amount of the bank guarantee, which is to be furnished by the accused.

(9) The accused will surrender their passports to the respective courts within a period of four weeks from today and will not leave the country without prior permission from the concerned court.

12

On compliance of the above order, if any accused is in custody, he will be granted bail in accordance with law.  

Any other proceedings between the parties will  remain unaffected  by  this  order  and  the  same  can  proceed  in accordance with law.  

The trial court/High Court will be at liberty to pass any further order which it considers appropriate, having regard to the individual fact situation or modify the above directions in exigencies of the situation.  

The special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.  Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  also  stand  disposed

of.”

11. In Criminal Appeal arising from S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 9196 of 2017,  the

Corporation vide its letter dated 18.03.2017 directed the appellant to furnish

bank guarantee equivalent  to  the  “defalcated  sum”  of  Rs.79.62  lakhs.

The appellant having failed, non-bailable warrant for arrest was issued on

29.05.2017.  In the second matter i.e. in Criminal Appeal arising from S.L.P.

(Crl.)  No.9029 of  2017,  the  Corporation  vide  its  letter  dated  18.03.2017

directed the appellant to deposit bank guarantee for the “defalcated amount”

of Rs.51.99 lakhs. On his failure, a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued

against the appellant on 22.07.2017. Similar such direction was issued by the

Corporation in the third matter on 18.03.2017 for furnishing bank guarantee

for the “defalcated sum” of Rs.29.40 lakhs.  After the failure to comply, non-

bailable warrant of arrest was issued on 30.05.2017.

13

12. Aggrieved,  the  appellants  in  all  three  cases  and  similarly  situated

persons approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna.  The High Court

by  its  common judgment  and  order  dated  09.10.2017  in  Crl.  Misc.  No.

29168 of 2017 and other connected cases, rejected the challenge.  Paras 42,

43 and 45 of the judgment were as under:

“42. Thus,  I  see  no merit  in  the  submission of  the  learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid order would not bind the petitioners, who were not parties before the Supreme Court.

43. So far as the point of pledging of property for the value of  paddy  in  lieu  of  bank  guarantee,  and  non-requirement  of bank guarantee in such cases are concerned, they were already raised before the Supreme Court by the rice millers, which is evident  from the  plain  reading  of  the  order  of  the  Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court did not accept their contention and passed order for deposit of bank guarantee.

45. So far as the liberty granted to this Court to modify the directions  issued by the  Supreme Court  is  concerned,  as  the order of the Supreme Court has already taken effect and the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners already stood cancelled, it  is  not  permissible  for  this  Court  to  modify  the  directions issued by the Supreme Court.  May be that in appropriate case, having regard to the individual  fact  situation,  in view of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court,  this  Court  could have modified  any  condition  if  the  petitioner(s)  would  have approached this Court in time.  However, such a recourse would be  impermissible  once  the  order  of  the  Supreme  Court  has taken its effect.  I am also of the opinion that if the persons are aggrieved by the order of the Supreme Court regarding deposit of bank guarantee, the only course left to them is to approach the  Supreme  Court  and  till  the  time  the  order  of  the

14

Supreme Court stands, the petitioners, whether they were party before the Supreme Court or not have to abide by its orders.”

13. The  appellants  in  all  three  cases  have  approached  this  Court

challenging the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.  Similar

such  petitions  have  also  been  filed  by  other  persons.  Leading  the

submissions on behalf  of  said persons including the appellant,  Mr.  Kapil

Sibal, learned Senior Advocate submitted:

(a) The  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  28.02.2017  did  not

contemplate  furnishing of  bank guarantee  or  keeping the  bank guarantee

alive in the sum equivalent to the alleged “defalcated sum”

(b) The  bank  guarantee  was  in  terms  of  the  stipulations

contemplated  by  the  agreement.  Only  such  bank  guarantee  was  to  be

furnished and kept alive.

(c) In cases where concerned millers had pledged their properties,

the interest of the corporation was well secured and there could not be any

insistence on furnishing of bank guarantee by way of additional security.   

14. Appearing for the respondent-State, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior

Advocate submitted:

15

(a) About  1500 crores  of  public  money was  involved in  all  the

matters.  The rice in issue was part of public distribution system and

all the millers were guilty of swindling public funds.

(b) In cases where bank guarantees were required to be given and

kept  alive  in  terms of  the  agreements  and yet  the  millers  had not

furnished  and  kept  alive  such  bank  guarantees,  the  benefit  of

anticipatory bail/bail was rightly cancelled.

(c) In order to sub-serve public interest, the corporation be allowed

to put to auction all the pledged properties and recover the defalcated

sums.

15. The aforesaid three criminal appeals, the facts whereof are discussed

in detail in preceding paragraphs show that there were three categories of

matters.  In the first, the miller was to give bank guarantee equivalent to the

value  of  paddy.   However  in  case  of  his  inability  to  furnish  such  bank

guarantee, the facility of pledging unencumbered immovable property was

afforded to  him.  The miller  was however  required to provide minimum

bank guarantee.  In the second matter, the bank guarantee had to be given in

respect  of  value  of  paddy.   Here  also  an  option  was  given  to  pledge

immovable  property  in  lieu  of  the  requirement  of  furnishing  of  bank

16

guarantee.   Though  there  appears  to  be  slight  distinction  in  phraseology

employed in the concerned clauses, the intent appears to be identical.  It is

also a matter of record that the appellant in the second matter had pledged

his land valued at Rs.1.3 crores and was not required to furnish any bank

guarantee.  In the third matter, there was no requirement of furnishing any

bank guarantee at all and all that the agreement insisted upon was furnishing

of security.

The requirement of furnishing bank guarantee was thus not mandatory

and  an  option  was  given  to  the  miller  to  pledge  his  unencumbered

immovable property.

16. The  matters  therefore  lie  in  a  short  compass.  The  order  granting

anticipatory bail/bail to the millers was challenged by the State/Corporation

in matters which came up before this Court on 28.02.2017.  While declining

to cancel such orders granting anticipatory bails/bail, this Court deemed it

proper to impose certain additional conditions.  The first condition was that,

in all  FIRs the concerned accused would ensure that bank guarantee was

furnished and kept alive, failing which, the benefit of anticipatory bails/bail

would stand cancelled. The reference to “Bank Guarantee” in said condition

No.1 was to the obligation arising from the agreement entered into with each

of the accused.

17

17. It  may  be  noted  here  that  prior  to  the  passing  of  the  order  dated

28.02.2017,  none  of  the  orders  passed  by  the  High  Court  or  this  Court

required furnishing of bank guarantee or keeping it alive in respect of the

“defalcated sum”.  The order passed by this Court on 28.02.2017 is quite

clear.  The reference to “Bank Guarantee” and the condition modulated in

that behalf was one which the accused was obliged to and had undertaken to

furnish in terms of the agreement.  If according to the terms of the agreement

and the benefit enjoyed by the concerned accused, he had already pledged

unencumbered  immovable  property  in  the  equivalent  sum,  there  was  no

requirement  to  furnish  and  to  keep  alive  additional  bank  guarantee.

Therefore the Corporation was not justified in demanding that the millers

must furnish bank guarantee in respect of “defalcated sum”.  The trial court

was  also  not  justified  in  cancelling  the  facility  of  bail/anticipatory  bail

already enjoyed by the miller and in issuing non-bailable warrants.

18. However there are certain categories of persons, who were enjoined to

furnish  bank  guarantee,  in  terms  of  their  agreement,  to  keep  such  bank

guarantee alive, had completely failed in that behalf.  Such failure on their

part was in complete derogation and violation of the order dated 28.02.2017

passed by this Court.  In such cases the trial court was certainly justified in

18

cancelling the facility of bail/anticipatory bail extended to such millers and

to issue non-bailable warrants of arrest.  There is one more category of cases

where the millers in question were not  parties to the proceedings in this

Court which were disposed of by order dated 28.02.2017.  The submission in

that behalf made by such millers that the condition imposed by this Court

would not apply to them was rightly rejected by the trial court and we affirm

the view so taken.

19. We now come to  the  last  submission  made  by Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,

learned Senior Advocate.  The idea behind requirement of furnishing bank

guarantee and or pledge of unencumbered property was to ensure sufficient

security  in  the  hands  of  the  Corporation.  Going  by  the  terms  of  the

agreement, in case there be any failure on part of the concerned miller to

discharge his obligations, the Corporation would certainly be entitled and

justified to take appropriate steps to secure its interest either by encashing

the bank guarantee and or by disposing the pledged properties in accordance

with law.  We therefore accept the submission and hold that the Corporation,

in such cases, would be well within its rights to take appropriate steps in the

concerned matters.

19

20. In the circumstances we direct:-

a) The expression “Bank Guarantee” used in  condition No.1 as

stipulated in order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court pertains to bank

guarantee which the concerned miller was obliged, in terms of the agreement

in question to furnish.  The obligation to furnish the bank guarantee and to

keep  it  alive  is  referable  to  the  terms  of  the  agreement  and  not  to  the

“defalcated sum” as was submitted by the Corporation.

b) If on account of failure to submit and to keep it alive in respect

of the “defalcated sum”, any benefit of bail/anticipatory bail was withdrawn

and orders of non-bailable warrants were issued, such orders stand cancelled

and recalled.  However the concerned millers ought to have furnished and

kept alive bank guarantees as contemplated in terms of the agreement.  If

there be any failure on this count the cancellation of bail/anticipatory bail

was perfectly justified.  

c) The order dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court would apply

to every single case, irrespective whether the concerned miller was a party to

the proceedings before this Court or not.

d) If any miller, in terms of the order dated 28.02.2017, had not

furnished bank guarantee or had not kept it alive in terms of his obligations

under  the  agreement,  the  facility  of  bail/anticipatory  bail  would  not  be

20

available to him.  The orders cancelling such facility stand confirmed and

the challenge in that behalf is negated.  All such millers shall be immediately

taken in custody by the concerned Police.

e) We  permit  the  Corporation  to  secure  its  interest  either  by

invoking  the  bank  guarantees  wherever  furnished  and  or  by  putting  to

auction the unencumbered immovable property pledged by the millers with

it, after due process of law.   

21. All the appeals stand disposed of in aforesaid terms, without any order

as to costs.  

…....….………………J.                                       (Abhay Manohar Sapre)  

……………………….J.  (Uday Umesh Lalit)  

New Delhi August 13, 2018