Delhi High Court
Shri S.K. Jain vs State [Along With Bail ... on 20 May, 2005
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. These two applications arise out of the same FIR and therefore they are taken together. The petitioners in these applications are the husband and wife. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.K.Jain is a fabricator of leather garments and he has had dealings with the complainant since 1993.
2. The complainant is a leading exporter of leather garments. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5 lakh in the name of the wife of S.K.Jain (Tripta Jain) for re-starting the fabrication unit at Chennai. This sum of money was paid sometime in 1999. However, it is alleged that despite repeated reminders and requests, the fabrication unit at Chennai was not re-started and the complainant came to know sometime in June 2003 that, in point of fact, the petitioners did not have any fabrication unit in Chennai and, therefore, he felt cheated.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had dealings with the complainant since 1993 running into crores. In fact they had even entered into an agreement, a copy whereof has been placed at page 24 of the paper book in the year 1998. That agreement was for a period of two years. However, it was terminated in November 1999 and the petitioners' unit in Delhi was shut down as a result thereof. It is in that context that a sum of Rs.5 lakh was paid to the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that apart from this Rs.5 lakh a further sum of Rs.3 lakh was also paid thereafter towards this shutting down process. It is his contention that no such promise, as indicated in the complaint for re-starting any unit in Chennai, was ever made by the petitioner. In fact, he submits that the petitioners never had any unit in Chennai and it is the complainant who had a unit in Chennai since 1993 as indicated in the website of the complainant, a printed copy whereof is placed at pages 60 to 64 of the paper book. At page 61, it is indicated that "Bharatiya International (BIL) is the largest exporter of leather garments from India" and at page 64 it is indicated that "In 1993 he opened a factory in Chennai followed by one in Bangalore. Today he does a Rs.100 crore business."
4. The learned counsel for the State opposes the grant of anticipatory bail at this stage inasmuch as according to him the complaint discloses that the complainant had been cheated out a sum of Rs.5 lakh on the false pre-text that the petitioners were to re-start a fabrication unit in Chennai when, in fact, they had no such unit.
4. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it did appear to me that when a sum of Rs.5 lakh has been paid for a particular purpose and that purpose is not fulfillled, in normal business dealings, at least a letter or a legal notice would have been issued for recovery of the said amount or for requiring compliance with the purposes for which the money was given. The learned counsel for the State has confirmed that no such letter or legal notice was issued by the complainant to the petitioners in respect of the said amount of Rs.5 lakh extended for the said purpose.
5. In these circumstances, I feel that this is a fit case in which the petitioners should be granted the facility of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Office.
The application stands disposed of.
