2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Chakrapani Gautam filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.6 Kota against the accused petitioner and other co-accused persons. The Judicial Magistrate forwarded the same to the SHO, Police Station, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. The SHO Mahaveer Nagar registered FIR No. 103/2012 against the accused petitioner and co-accused persons for offence under Sections 420 406 and 120 B IPC.

3. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant with an ulterior motive filed the complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is a widow lady and serving in the Government School where the wife of the complainant is working. The son of the accused petitioner and the complainant are school mate and friend and very close to each other. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the police is bent upon to arrest the petitioner hence he has filed application for bail before the Sessions Judge under Section 438 Cr.P.C, who vide order dated 30.3.2012 declined the prayer of the accused petitioner. The Sessions Judge, Kota in its order dated 30.3.2012 observed as under :

^^mHk;i{k ds rdksZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ifjokn i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj ifjoknh dh ifRu ;'kksnk xksre rFkk izkfFkZ;k ,d gh Ldwy ij ukSdjh djrh gS rFkk muds iq= o HkkbZ ds lkFk "kM;a= dj ifjoknh ds ?kj tkdj vius iq= ujsUnz dqekj xqIrk dks cksukUtk dEiuh dk vf/kdkjh crkrs gq, mä dEiuh esa bUosLVesUV djus ij 8 izfr'kr izfrekg ds Hkkjh equkQs dk izyksHku nsdj ifjoknh ls vkB yk[k :i;s tfj;s pSd izkIr fd;s fdUrq tc ,xzhesUV ds vuqlkj ifjoknh dks 8 izfr'kr izfrekg dk fjVuZ ykHk ugha feyk rks mlus vfHk;qäx.k ls lEidZ fd;kA bl ij izkfFkZ;k us mls 56000@& :i;s dk pSd fn;k rFkk nsosUnz tSu us 25000@& :i;s o 72000@& :i;s ds nks pSd fn;sA izkfFkZ;k }kjk fn;s x;s pSd dk ifjoknh dks Hkqxrku gks x;k fdUrq nsosUnz tSu }kjk fn;s x;s nksuksa pSd vuknfjr gks x;sA bl ij ifjonh us viuh laiw.kZ cdk;k jkf'k 7]44]000@& :i;s dh ekax dh rks nsosUnz dqekj tSu ls mls nks yk[k :i;s dk pSd fn;k tks Hkh vuknfjr gks x;kA bl izdkj izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) vius iq= o HkkbZ ds lkFk feydj "kM;a= dj ifjoknh dks izyksHku o >kalk nsdj ifjoknh ls vkB yk[k :i;s izkIr djus o mlesa ls ek= 56000 :i;s dh jkf'k ds vykok 'ks"k jkf'k gM+i dj tkus ds vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA Lo;a izkfFkZ;k ds vuqlkj mldk iq= nsosUnz tSu ykirk gSA i=koh ij vc rd ladfyr lk{; ,oa lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd izkfFkZ;k ds fo:) dksbZ izFke n`"V;k lk{; ugha gSA vr% ekeys fd leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, esa izkfFkZ;k dks bl izdj.k esa vfxze tekur ij fjgk djuk U;k;laxr ugha le>rkA

vr% izkfFkZ;k dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vfxze tekur izkFkZuk i= vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA**

4. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused petitioner and stated that at this stage in such an offence involving 8 lac rupees, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

5. I have heared the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by the Sessions Judge and the material made available to me. I am in agreement with the order of the Sessions Judge. According to the version of the petitioner herself that her son is absconding. Huge money of the complainant has been taken away and the cheques issued for some money was also dishonoured by the Bank. Without commenting on the merits of the case which will either way prejudice the case of the parties, at this stage it is not a fit case in which the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. can be granted to the accused petitioner. This criminal misc.bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.