1999 Supreme(Raj) 1335
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Ashutosh Purohit - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B.Cr. Misc. Bail Appln. No. 2384 of 1999.
Decided On : 23-08-1999
Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. Ramakant pareek, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.S. Rathore, P.P.
The court considered the lack of direct interest of the accused in the transactions and the status of the co-accused in granting bail.
Headnote:
Bail Granted - Criminal Law - The court granted bail to the accused, Ashutosh Purohit, in a case involving allegations of financial transactions and non-payment of dues, based on the finding that the accused had no direct interest in the transactions and the co-accused had already been granted bail. The court imposed specific conditions for the bail.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged non-payment of dues against the accused and co-accused in a financial transaction case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had no direct interest in the transactions and that the co-accused had already been granted bail, leading to the grant of bail to the accused.
Issues: Allegations of non-payment of dues, involvement of the accused in financial transactions, and the request for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of direct interest of the accused in the transactions and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused, Ashutosh Purohit, with specific conditions to be observed.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard.
2. Despite specific directions case-diary was not produced. Hence heard the learned counsel for the parties on the material placed before me.
3. On 22.3.99 Rajnish Pandey-complainant, filed a complaint in the court of Judicial Magistrate, alleging therein that he was an employee of Ashish Goyal who was one of the Directors of M/s. Goyal Fashion Ltd.
4. Shri Ashish had authorised him to sell his shares through a reliable share brokers; that on coming in contract with the present applicant Ashutosh Purohit the complainant entered into business transaction with Smt. Krishna Pareek and Shri Arvind Tiwari, who were dealing in the shares; that in the transactions carried on between the parties upto March 1995 a sum of Rs. 3,18,302.30 remained outstanding against the aforesaid dealer which they did not pay despite repeated demands from the complainant. The complaint was forwarded under section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code to the Police Station Sadar, Jaipur, thereupon Crime No. 87/99 under Section 409 and 120-B Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicant and Smt. Krishna Pareek and Arvind Tiwari. Apprehending his arrest in that case the applicant unsuccessfully approached the learned Sessions Judge for bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code.
5. It was submitted that the applicant had simply introduced the complainant to Smt. Krishana Pareek and Arvind Tiwari co-accused and that after such introduction the two parties have carried-on their business transactions upto March 1995; that Smt. Krishna Pareek has already been admitted to bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Sessions Judge and; that since the applicant has no interest what-so-ever in the transaction entered by the complainant and the other co-accused in the case, he should be granted indulgence of bail under section 438 Criminal Procedure Code.
6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is directed that the applicant Ashutosh Purohit S/o Dr. V.K. Purohit accused in FIR No. 87/99, P.S. Sadar, Jaipur, in the event of his arrest, shall be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with personal bond(s) in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the Officer arresting him/her/them and shall observe the following conditions:
(i) that the person(s) shall make himself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.
(ii) that the person(s) 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) that the person(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
7. This order shall remain in force till the expiry of one month after the submission of the charge sheet, if any, against him/her/them during the meanwhile the applicant(s) may appear before the court concerned and pray for regular bail there.Bail Granted.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
