HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9028/2021
Manish Kakrania S/o Shri Devi Prasad, Resident Of Plot No.6 ,
Queens Park, Flat No. 3B, Ballygunge, Circus Avenue, Kolkata.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh, Mr. Akash Shrivastava For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Ola, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 16/08/2021
1. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.219/2021 registered at Police Station Sanganer, Sadar, Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of FIR reveals that this matter pertains to civil nature but criminal colour has been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Uday Chand and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohd.
Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K and Ors. (Criminal
(Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:42:48 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9028/2021]
Miscellaneous Petitions No.1016-1021 of 1981) decided on 12.03.1981.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner and other persons were Directors in Citylife Retail Private Limited Company and they had taken cloths of lacs of rupees from the complainant and other persons. They had not paid single penny. Petitioner had sold the said company to other person. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the bail application be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.
6. Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner was Director of Citylife Retail Private Limited Company and he had taken cloths of lacs of rupees from the complainant. He had not paid the amount to the complainant and sold the company to other person. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Seema/22 (Downloaded on 19/08/2021 at 09:42:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)