Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 416 (RAJ)

Ankur Mangla v. State

2020-02-26

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2020
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 347/2019, Police Station Ratanada, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was an ongoing transaction between the petitioner and the complainant. Since the petitioner is involved in the jewellery business, therefore, there was exchange of precious metals in raw form as well as in the form of ornaments. He further submits that the cheque amount which is due to the complainant can still be paid by the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned public prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submit that apart from the cash amount which is due from the present petitioner, gold to the tune of 800 grams was also given to the petitioner during the course of time. He further submits that the petitioner is neither paying the amount due to him nor returning the gold taken from the complainant for making jewellery. The petitioner has also not returned the jewellery which was supposed to be made out of the gold supplied by the complainant. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the jewellery items so prepared from the gold received were returned and CCTV footage to that effect has been supplied to the Investigating officer. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant submits that neither the gold articles made/prepared by the petitioner have been returned nor there is any receipt to that effect for supplying the same to the complainant. 7. The petitioner has not only been named in the F.I.R but also specific role has been assigned to him in the said F.I.R. Now-a-days, the offences of cheating or forgery are increasing, therefore, in the interest of justice, the aspect is required to be noticed by the Court while granting indulgence of anticipatory bail. 7. The petitioner has not only been named in the F.I.R but also specific role has been assigned to him in the said F.I.R. Now-a-days, the offences of cheating or forgery are increasing, therefore, in the interest of justice, the aspect is required to be noticed by the Court while granting indulgence of anticipatory bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of the judgments has held that privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in 'exceptional cases' as grant of this relief, to some extent, interferes in the sphere of probe of an offence and hence, 'the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail'. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.