Sapna Mookim W/O Pushpraj Mookim vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1178 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7041/2020

1.      Sapna Mookim W/o Pushpraj Mookim, Aged About 46
        Years, R/o 21, Chanda Path, Suraj Nagar West, Civil
        Lines, Jaipur.
2.      Pushpraj Mookim S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Mookim, Aged
        About 50 Years, R/o 21, Chanda Path, Suraj Nagar West,
        Civil Lines, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.      Bimal Chajjer S/o S.l. Chajjer, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
        8, Hari Marg, Mansinghpura, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur(Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP Mr. Ramit Pareek

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

03/02/2021

The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.16/2020 registered at Police

Station P.S. Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (East) for the offence(s) under

Sections 420 and 406 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have been wrongly implicated in this case. Present

case is purely in civil nature and criminal colour has been given by

the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the

arbitration proceedings is pending between the parties. Learned

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-7041/2020]

counsel also submits that the offence under Sections 420 and 406

of IPC is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on

a judgment of Syed Kaleem Vs. M/s Mysore Lakshmi Beedi

Works, reported in I.L.R. 1992 KAR 2614.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

complaint opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel

for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners had taken

franchisee of medical service "Saaol" from complaint and that

agreement was expired on 28.11.2018. After that, petitioners are

continue using Trade Marks "Saaol". Notice was given to the

petitioners but they are illegally using Trade Marks "Saaol".

Petitioners had taken franchisee of medical service "Saaol"

from the complainant. As per agreement, franchisee was in

existence till 28.11.2018. After that, the petitioners are not

entitled to use the franchisee of medical service "Saaol" but

petitioners are continually using the said franchisee. So, looking to

the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the

anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Hence, the anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

TN/129

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)