In cases where anticipatory bail has been granted based on documentary evidence and the investigation is complete, the court may impose conditions for the continuation of the anticipatory bail instead of cancelling it outright.

M.L. Singhal, J. - This is Crl. Misc. No. 20481-M of 1998 whereby the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (Markfed) through its Chief Manager (Law) has prayed for the cancellation of anticipatory bail allowed to Ashok Kumar etc. respondents No. 2 to 7 in case FIR No. 30 dated 25.2.1998 under Section 406/420 Indian Penal Code of PS City Ferozepur vide order Annexure P5 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that in the paddy procurement season of the year 1994-95, an agreement was concluded between Markfed and several rice millers of Ferozepur district. According to that agreement, paddy was to be purchased in the account of the applicant Markfed to be stored and stocked by the rice millers. Paddy was to be taken out of the godowns for custom milling on the release orders issued by the concerned District Manager of the Markfed and after milling rice was to be supplied to the Food Corporation of India in the account of the Markfed. Millers were not at liberty to take out paddy of their own volition. On 23.7.1996, physical verification was conducted by a team comprising the District Managers of Markfed, Punsup, Warehousing Corporation and the representative of the accused when it was found that there was no paddy in the stock and there was shortage of 17,998 bags IR-8 and 6304 bags of PR-106. The checking committee prepared statement Annexure P1 at the spot which was signed by all concerned including the representative of the millers. According to the prosecution, the millers committed an offence punishable under Section 406/420 Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act since the millers failed to supply rice to the Food Corporation of India. Rather millers removed the paddy unauthorisedly and converted the same into rice for their own use. On District Manager, Ferozepur writing letter Annexure P2 to SSP, Ferozepur, case was registered. It is alleged that Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur granted anticipatory bail to Ashok Kumar etc. accused-respondents on wrong premises. Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur recorded statement Annexure P3 of Shri L.S. Sekhon, the District Manager, Markfed, Ferozepur to the effect that the accused might deposit the amount in accordance with the physical verification conducted on 23.7.1996. It is alleged that while stating so, the District Manager did not mean or suggest that the accused could deposit price of the misappropriated paddy at any particular rate. District Manager had pointed out that Markfed would not accept from the accused anything short of the economic cost if the accused were to be allowed anticipatory bail. They could be allowed anticipatory bail only on paying for the misappropriated paddy. As per the written agreement between the parties, in the event of any shortage or damage, the millers were supposed to make payment to the Markfed at one and a half times of the economic cost. The Markfed office computes the economic cost of paddy every year and for the year 1994-95, the economic cost of IR-8 variety of paddy was Rs. 439.56 per quintal whereas that of fine and super-fine variety of PR-106 paddy was Rs. 464.89 and Rs. 489.07 per quintal vide Annexure P3/A. Adding 50% thereto, the liability of the miller was in the measure of Rs. 659.34, Rs. 697.30 and Rs. 733.60 respectively. It is alleged that the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur passed an order Annexure P4 directing the accused to deposit the amount at Rs. 240/- per quintal of PR-106 and Rs. 220/- per quintal of IR-8 and pay the amount of deficient paddy to the Markfed. It is alleged that the Additional Sessions Judge wrongly stated in the order that the District Manager, Markfed had no objection to the assessment of price of deficient paddy at the said rate and the District Manager, Markfed was put to a considerable financial loss by the accused- respondents by misappropriating the paddy entrusted to them for