The great milk heist: High court grants bail to security guard in Rs 7.6 lakh theft case

Justice Manisha Batra held that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and granted relief to the security guard.

How 9,110 kg of milk allegedly ended up in a tanker

The case arose from an alleged milk theft at Modern Dairies Ltd in Shamgarh, Karnal, on the night of December 17, 2025. According to the complaint, the tanker driver brought paneer whey to the dairy, and the tanker weighed 32,360 kg. After unloading it, the weight of the tanker was 11,800 kg. The driver allegedly connected his tanker to the plant’s milk tank and filled it with around 9,800 litres.

Security staff stopped the tanker near the main gate and allegedly found 9,110 kg of milk worth Rs 7.68 lakh inside the tanker. The dairy claimed that the tanker driver was stealing milk in connivance with the co-accused and some other officials of the plant, and had been committing theft of milk etc, causing huge loss to Modern Dairies Ltd.

After the FIR was registered, investigation proceedings were initiated and a security guard at the plant was arrested on December 19, 2025. During the investigation, the police allegedly found that the accused had been sending milk outside the plant. Suspicious bank transactions amounting to Rs 45 lakh were found to have occurred in the co-accused’s bank account. 

Guard arrested during probe

Advocate Pankaj Bali, appearing for the security guard, argued that he was simply a guard temporarily deputed in the milk plant, and had been nominated based on the disclosure statement of the co-accused. It was submitted that he had no control over the loading mechanism or internal pumping operations in the dairy plant, which were exclusively managed by the processing operators and helpers of the plant, and was not responsible for the actions of other employees of the plant. 

The counsel contended that the entire loading process in the dairy plant was monitored by CCTV and overseen by multiple layers of security, while his duty was only to guard the premises of the company. It was argued that his history was clean, and no recovery was made from him. It was also pointed out that no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody anymore. 

Assistant Advocate General Neeraj Poswal, while placing on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, said that taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations, the guard did not deserve bail as he may flee or commit similar offences in the future if the relief is granted.

Bail granted

The court observed that the security guard had been in custody since December 19, 2025, and was no longer required for further investigation, and noted that the trial would take considerable time to conclude.

It held that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the man in custody any longer, and that pre-trial detention should not become a substitute for post-conviction imprisonment. Accordingly, the court granted bail to the guard.