Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2994 (RAJ)

Mankala Sai Krishna v. State of Rajasthan

2019-12-13

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.339/2019 of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the direction given by this Court on 24.09.2019, the petitioner joined the investigation and was thoroughly interrogated by the police. It is submitted that it is a case of breach of conditions of the contract executed between the petitioner and the complainant. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not breach any condition of the contract executed between him and the complainant. It is also submitted that the complainant was partner of a firm situated in USA, however, on account of dispute between the complainant and the other partners of firm, the business of the company was stopped then the petitioner and other employees of the firm were forced to leave the company of the complainant. It is submitted that some criminal cases were also registered against the complainant in USA. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Director in some other company after execution of the agreement between him and the complainant but the said appointment of the petitioner as Director does not fall within the ambit of breach of agreement because no such condition was there to the effect that the petitioner would not join as Director in any other company while working with the complainant's company. It is further submitted that if the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the complaint is considered in toto, then only a case of civil nature is made out against him. It is submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner breached the condition of the agreement executed by him with the complainant and as such he is guilty of offence of breach of trust. It is also submitted that the petitioner hacked the e-mail ID of the complainant's company and snatched the whole business by forming companies in his name, his wife as well as in the name of his mother. It is also submitted that the petitioner hacked the e-mail ID of the complainant's company and snatched the whole business by forming companies in his name, his wife as well as in the name of his mother. It is further submitted that passwords of the website and email IDs of the complainant's company are still in possession of the petitioner and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is a clear case of cheating and misappropriation of fund. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that petitioner executed an agreement with the complainant's company, however later on, the petitioner resigned from that company but prior to that, he was appointed as Director in some other company. Whether the action of the petitioner of joining another company as Director is a criminal liability or not is a question of investigation. The petitioner appeared before the police and was thoroughly interrogated. It appears that till date, the police found a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 402 and 409 of IPC, however, investigation in respect of any violation of IT law is under process. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner had already joined the investigation and was thoroughly interrogated by the police, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Mankala Sai Krishna S/o Shri Mankala Surya Prakash in FIR No.339/2019 of Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) He 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; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.