Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2504 (RAJ)

Manish Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with FIR No.214/2018 of P.S. Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioner a is partner of Chartered Account Firm Pvt. Ltd. situated in Agra and vide letter dated 6.11.2014, he was authorized to audit account books of Gaushala situated at Sanchore, District Jalore (complainant) for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner audited the accounts of the complainant-Gaushala for two years and thereafter the audit work of the Gaushala was assigned to somebody else. It is submitted that allegation against the petitioner to the effect that while auditing the accounts work of the complainant Gaushala, he made certain false entries regarding loans taken by Gaushala from different persons, is absolutely false. It is argued that the petitioner had made these entries as per the accounts of Gaushala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that another allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he was instrumental of preparation of forged loan agreement executed between Mehandiratta Association and complainant Gaushala, however, he is neither signatory of the said agreement nor he was present at the time of execution of the said agreement. Learned counsel has further submitted that another allegation of preparation of forged pronote of co-accused Deva Ram on behalf of the complainant Gaushala is also false. It is argued that the petitioner is neither signatury of the said Pronote dated 6.2.2018 nor he was present at the time of preparing the Pronote. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that so far as the dispute regarding the loan agreement as well as pronote executed on behalf of the complainant Gaushala are concerned, till date, the matter is pending before the Arbitrator and from this, it is clear that the dispute between the complainant and Mehandiratta Associates is purely of civil nature. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation and has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the custodial interrogation is not required from him. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have submitted that the petitioner, while auditing the accounts of Gaushala, had made several false entries showing that the complainant Gaushala had taken loan of crores of rupees from different persons, whereas, as a matter of fact, the complainant Gaushala had never taken loan from those persons. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being a Chartered Accountant of the complainant Gaushala, having knowledge about the financial conditions of it, had entered into a conspiracy with other coaccused person and prepared a forged loan agreement as well as a pronote said to have been executed by the authorized representative of the Gaushala on the basis of that, the coaccused persons have initiated proceedings against the complainant for recovery of the said loan amount. It is further submitted that owner of Mehandiratta Associates, in favour of whom, alleged forged agreement has been executed, is near relative of the petitioner and the co-accused persons and the petitioner conspired with each other with intention to cheat the complainant Gaushala. 7. It is, therefore, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the case diary. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was authorized to audit the accounts of the complainant Gaushala for two years running from 2014 to 2016. The allegation of complainant Gaushala is to the effect that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had hatched a conspiracy and prepared a forged loan agreement dated 3rd April, 2016 said to have been executed between the Menandirata Associates and the complainant Gaushala. It is not in dispute that on 3rd of April, 2016, the petitioner was working as an auditor for the complainant Gaushala. 10. It is not in dispute that on 3rd of April, 2016, the petitioner was working as an auditor for the complainant Gaushala. 10. In the case diary, a letter issued by the Directorate Gopalan, Government of Rajasthan dated 8.12.2017 is available, which is addressed to the petitioner, in which the Directorate has informed the petitioner that no action can be taken on the complaint filed by him in respect of alleged irregularities in borrowing the loan by the complainant Gaushala. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 15.6.2019 and in his interrogation, he specifically admitted that the agreement dated 3rd of April, 2016 was executed in his presence. In the said interrogation, the petitioner has also specifically stated that M/s Mehandiratta Associates is also belonging to him. However, the petitioner again appeared before the Investigating Officer on 12.9.2019 and gave statements that he has no relation with Mehandiratta Associates and the so called agreement dated 3 rd April, 2016 between Mehandiratta and the complainant was not executed in his presence. It is interesting to note that at the time of interrogation of the petitioner, he did not disclose about any such complaint made by him to the State Government complaining that the complainant Gaushala is taking loans from the different persons in illegal manner. 11. It is also to be noticed that the complainant is claiming that the Schedule-B list of persons, who had allegedly given loan to the complainant Gaushala, appended to the agreement dated 3rd of April, 2016 is prepared by the petitioner only while working as auditor of the complainant Gaushala and the same list is attached by the petitioner to the State Government in his complaint filed. 12. From the above noted facts, it appears that the petitioner is narrating contradictory facts to the Investigation Officer wherever he appeared before him under the protection granted by this Court and as such trying to confuse the facts. In such situation, I feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having scrutinized the case diary, I am of the opinion that prima facie there is involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime, therefore, no case for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitoner is made out. 14. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having scrutinized the case diary, I am of the opinion that prima facie there is involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime, therefore, no case for granting benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitoner is made out. 14. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.