IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.7463/2010. Ashok Kumar Sabbarwal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.K. Mehrishi for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Fauzdar Public Prosecutor for State. ******
Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.
Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was originally running the shops of Bata Shoe Company Bundi on commission basis but subsequently in 2004, it was agreed between the accused-petitioner and complainant-company that petitioner would purchase two shops on payment of total Rs.15 lacs. Petitioner paid entire amount and the complainant-company assured for getting the documents executed at later point of time. Reference in this connection was made to the receipt given by Ashesh Bhattacharya, District Manager of the Bata Company, another receipt of Rs.4,30,800/- given by B.Das Manager Bata Company and lastly the receipt dated 30/6/2009 issued by the Bata Company for payment of Rs.1,91,225.16 in favour of the petitioner. Reference is also made to the letter wrote by the petitioner to the complainant-Bata Shoe Company dated 21/12/2006 asking them to get the sale-deed registered. It was thereupon that the first information report was lodged by the complainant-company against the petitioner for offence u/Ss.420, 467, 468, 447, 448, 451, 120B and 427 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has also given a notice to the complainant Bata India Ltd., Gurgaon (Haryana) for getting the aforesaid lease-deed executed in his favour or else, he shall have to file suit for specific performance through Advocate. A civil dispute has thus been given the shape of a criminal case.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application but is not in a position to rebut the documents on record from the case diary to show that correspondence was being exchanged between the parties for execution of the sale of the shops for which, however, sale-deed was not executed.
Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail.
In the result, this anticipatory bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Ashok Kumar Sabbarwal S/o Shri M.R. Sabbarwal in FIR No.442/2009 PS Kotwali, Bundi for offence u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 447, 448, 451, 120B and 427 IPC, he be released by the SHO/IO on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction with 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 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.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil