Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3763 Raj/2

        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



                                                                         (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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)