JUDGMENT 1. - This bail application has been filed under Section 438, Cr. P.C. A case under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(b), IPC. has been registered against the accused petitioner and Shri Manak Chand Jain, Shri Raj Bhushan, and Shri Dharam Vir Jain, on the basis of a report lodged on 10th May, 1981, by Shri V. K. Saraf, General Manager, M/s. Modern Syntex (India) Ltd., Alwar, (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") with the S.H.O., Police Station-Sadar, Alwar. In the said report, it has been alleged that the Company carries on business in the manufacture of Synthetic yarn at Alwar, and that the accused persons are the partners in a firm, M/s. Manak Trading Co. (hereinafter referred to as "the Firm ) and they carry on business as dealers in Synthetic yarn at Naya Mohalla, Mozpur Bazar, Ludhiana. In the said complaint it is further alleged that on 15th May, 1980, an agreement was executed, whereby, the firm was appointed as agent of the Company, for the purpose of selling its products. In the complaint, it is further alleged that similar arrangements with regard to sale of the products of the Company were in vogue with two other firms M/s. Swarn Woolen Mills and M/s. Lodha Knitwears. In the said complaint, it is also alleged that during the period from 26th December, 1980 to 3rd March, 1981, goods worth Rs. 29.00.000/- were dispatched by the Company from Alwar through M/s. Yadav Transport Service and M/s. Yadav Transport Company, to the aforesaid firms and that the delivery of the said goods was to be obtained on the basis of documents which were sent through the bank but the accused persons in collusion with the Transport Company obtained the delivery of the goods without making any payment and without obtaining the document from the bank. In the complaint, it is further alleged that between the aforesaid dates, namely, 26th December, 1980 to 3rd March, 1981, yarn worth Rs. 9,00,000/- was sent through M/s. Yadav Transport Service with the directions that the said goods were to be delivered to the firm on receipt of the freight receipts, but the accused obtained the delivery of the said goods from the transporters without obtaining the freight receipts from the Company. In the said complaint it is further alleged that from 21st April, to 28th April, 1931, goods worth Rs. In the said complaint it is further alleged that from 21st April, to 28th April, 1931, goods worth Rs. 12.00.000/- were sent by the Company and that the accused persons obtained the delivery of the said goods from the Managers of the Company at Ludhiana on the promise that they would make the payment for the same, but the accused persons have misappropriated the said goods and have not made any payment to the Company. 2. It appears that on 11th May, 1981, accused-petitioner, Swarnjit Jain, as the Proprietor of Swarn Woolen Mills has filed a suit against the Company for the recovery of Rs. 2,54,379.80 in the court of Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana and in the said suit, the sub-Judge, Class, Ludhiana, has, on 11th May, 1981, passed an order for attachment of certain goods under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, C.P.C and has also issued an injunction restraining the Company from disposing of the said goods in any manner till 11th June, 1981. Another suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,98,960.02 has been filed against the Company by the firm on 11th May, and in the said suit also a similar order for attachment and injunction has been issued by the Sub Judge, I Class, Ludhiana, on 11th May, 1981. 3. The accused-petitioner had moved an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Alwar, and the same has been rejected by the Sessions Judge, by his order dated 2nd June, 1981. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner has filed this application. 4. I have head Shri S.N. Bhargava, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, and the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Shri J. P. Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the Company. 5. Shri Bhargava has submitted that the dispute which is the subject-matter of the criminal proceedings against the accused-petitioner is in the nature of a civil dispute arising out of the agency agreement entered into by the accused-petitioner with the Company and the criminal complaint has been filed only with a view to harass the accused-petitioner. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for the Company have, on the other hand, laid emphasis on the fact that serious allegations with regard to misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 6. The learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for the Company have, on the other hand, laid emphasis on the fact that serious allegations with regard to misappropriation of goods worth Rs. 50,00,000/- are levelled against the accused-petitioner and that there are also allegations with regard to forgery of certain documents by the accused persons. 7. I have perused the complaint as well as the other papers including the agreement. 8. At this stage, I do not consider it fit to go into the merits of the case, but taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to direct that the accused-petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 9. It is, therefore directed that in the event of his arrest the accused-petitioner may be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- one lakh and one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O. Arresting Officer, Police Station-Sadar, Alwar. The aforesaid order for the release of the accused-petitioner,will, however, be subject to the following conditions:- (1) that the accused-petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (2) that the accused-petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the' facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and (3) that the accused-petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Bail Granted. *******