JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the bail-application. 2. In this bail-application under S. 438 Cr.P.C. the allegations are that when the complainant on 21st November, 1991, went to open his shop, at that time accused petitioner Kamlesh Saxena, came to the shop and obstructed in opening the shop, used filthy language and also gave beating. On this report a case for offences under Ss. 452, 323 and Section 3 of the S.C. and S.T. Prevention of Atrocities Act, was registered. The trial-court rejected the application under S 438 Cr.P.C. 3. I have perused the case diary and I find that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, in view of the fact that there is not only belated report but the case of the complainant himself is self-contradictory. In the first information report, in from para, he has come out with a case that he was serving on the shop of the petitioner; in second (illegible) he came with a case of partnership & in third one of his own ownership after settling the previous monetary dispute. The dispute with the accused petitioner therefore, emerges out of business transactions and ex-facie does fall within the exception as such I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused petitioner. 4. The S.H.O./Arresting Officer/I.O. Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Kota, in F.I.R. No. 22/1992, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Kamlesh Saxena, son of Ram Prasad Saxena, shall be released on pre-arrest bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 2,000/- together with one surely in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- 1. That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner shall not directly, or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to disuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India, without the previous permission of the court. *******