Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1921 (RAJ)

ARUN RUNGTA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007-10-05

GUMAN SINGH

body2007
Judgment GUMAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned P. P. for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel submits that the complainant has already filed a complaint u/s 138 Cr. P. C. and the present prosecution, which has been lodged u/ss 420, 406, 409, 120-B is an after-thought so as to pressurize the accused petitioner to come to the terms. Learned Counsel also invited the attention of this Court towards the bill/invoice issued by the complainant firm and argued that the accused petitioner is not in the picture while the goods have been sent to M/s bahubali, who is accused No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that a legal notice (Annexure 1) was addressed to Vinod kumar Agarwal, accused No. 3, expressing that the accused petitioner is not trading in the mustard oil and no order as alleged was given on behalf of the accused petitioner for mustard oil to him but no reply was received by him. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bhuba and Ors. v. State of rajasthan. ( 3 ) LEARNED P. P. opposed the bail on the ground that the accused No. 3 is agent of accused No. 1 and as such he is liable for the offence alleged. ( 4 ) IN view of the rival contentions, on perusal of case diary, it appears that a legal notice was issued on 2. 4. 2007 on behalf of the complainant to Vinod Agarwal as well as Bahubali Attraction Pvt. Ltd. , to whom the goods were delivered along with the accused petitioner and others named in the notice. On perusal of the notice it appears that the whole transaction of mustard oil was narrated in the letter and it was mentioned that in case of failure to make payment, a complaint u/ss. 420,406,120-B IPC would be lodged. This notice has been replied on behalf of Vinod Agarwal, vide reply dated 10. 4. 2007, wherein it was mentioned that the transaction was effected in accordance with the terms of the contract and the parties are proceeding according to the said terms. It was further mentioned that no offence as such is alleged to have been made out. This notice has been replied on behalf of Vinod Agarwal, vide reply dated 10. 4. 2007, wherein it was mentioned that the transaction was effected in accordance with the terms of the contract and the parties are proceeding according to the said terms. It was further mentioned that no offence as such is alleged to have been made out. It has been also mentioned that regarding the non-payment of the cheque amount, a criminal petition has already been lodged in the Court. It appears that a petition under section 138 Cr. P. C. has already been lodged by the complainant and the present prosecution is in consequence of the legal notice served on behalf of the complainant and the reply thereof as mentioned above. In view of the whole transaction that transpired between the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, at this stage but, having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, material collected so far during the course of investigation and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgent of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the result, this bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Arun Rungta, in FIR No. 86/07, at police Station Udyog Nagar, Bharatpur, for the offence u/ss 420, 406, 409, 120-B IPC, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac together with two sureties in the sum of rs. 50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the concerned S. H. O. /i. O. on the following conditions: (1) that the petitioner shall make themselves 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 promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (3) that the petitioner shall not leave india without previous permission of the Court. Petition allowed.