MOHIT GARG Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions may be decided by this common order. Both the petitioner have been filed for grant of bail in the same case. The case was registered on the complaint of Mr. Prem Chand Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Mayur Textiles and his wife Mrs. Pushp Lata Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Expo Tex. It is alleged that Mr. Sudhir Kuamr Gupta, petitioner is uncle of Mr. Mohit Kumar Garg. Both had introduced themselves to be the Director of M/s. Pahanawa Boutiqua India. They represented that they were importer and exporter of garments, fabrics and handicraft and, inter alia, had their showroom in Budapest in Hungary. The purchased grey cloth from the complainants from time-to-time and made payments by cheque and in cash. The goods of the value of more than Rs. 90. 00 lacs was sold to both these petitioners and their firm M/s. Pahanawa Boutique Ltd. Out of the total sale of Rs. 39. 35 lacs by M/s. Mayur Textiles a sum of Rs. 26. 00 lacs was paid and out of Rs. 49,18,373. 75 sale the petitioners paid only Rs. 28,25,228. 00 to M/s. Expo text. The petitioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta issued cheque dated 7. 3. 2000 for rs. 3. 00 lacs to Mr. Prem Chand Gupta, Complainant and issued two cheques dated 7. 3. 2000 for Rs. 3. 00 lacs each to the complainant Mrs. Pushp Lata Gupta. He assured that the cheques will be honoured and, therefore, left for Hungary 24. For the reasons mentioned above, both the revision petitions have no force and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/2002 is dismissed after confirming the order dated 18. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 303/99 and the Criminal Revision petition No. 17/2002 is dismissed after confirming the order dated 18. 8. 2001 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 304/99 assuring that the outstanding amount of Rs. 16. 75 lacs due to the firm of the complainant Mr. Prem Chand Gupta and Rs. 25. 50 lacs payable to the firm of mrs. Pushp Lata Gupta would be paid by his nephew, the petitioner, Mohit Kumar garg to him he would send or would arrange money from Hungary. The petitioner sudhir Kumar Gupta used to receive the supply of goods through his agent, Naresh kumar Goel who used to collect invoices and LRs for and on behalf of M/s. Pahanawa Boutique India and on behalf of these two petitioners. The complainant used to get the acknowledgement of the receipt of the purchases from these two petitioners and other agents namely Devanand, Kamal etc. The Cheques issued by Sudhir Kuamr Gupta on presentation to the Bank were dishonoured. The complainant came to know that the petitioners have cheated other persons also in the same manner. The complaint an approached Mohit Kumar Garg and demanded money but he refused and in fact, intimidated them. These petitioners are trying to run away to Hungary.

(2.) DURING the investigation of the case, as per APP, sufficient martial has been collected to show involvement of these two petitioners in the commission of the offence of cheating the complainant of a large sum of money. Counsel for petitioners have stated that false case has been made against there petitioners as the goods supplied was of inferior quality. They further contended that the complainant have already filed a complaint under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners in which charges have been framed against petitioner, Sudhir Kumar gupta and petitioner, Mohit Kumar Garg has been discharged. It is also contended that petitioner Sudhir Kumar Gupta is in judicial custody for the past nine months. The trial will take long. The complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments act and a civil suit are already pending against him. He is no more required for investigation purposes, therefore, he should be granted bail. Argument of Counsel for petitioner, Mohit Kumar Garg is that he was only an employee of Sudhir Kumar gupta and has nothing to do with the firm which allegedly purchased the goods from the complainant. It was stated that he is also in judicial custody and is not required for investigation purpose, therefore, he should also be granted bail.

(3.) COUNSEL for both the petitioners have referred to Ashok Dhingra v. NCT of delih, IV (2000) CCR 509 (SC), and Ashok Dhingra V. NCT of Delhi, 2000 (7) SCC 350, in support of their argument that the petitioners should be granted bail. APP opposing the bail has argued that Sudhir Kumar Gupta was granted anticipatory bail with the condition that he will not leave the country but he violated the condition of bail and went to Hungary. Therefore, there is every possibility of his fleeing from justice. It was also argued that the allegations against these petitioners are very grave and serious. They have cheated the complainant of over rs. 42. 00 lacs making fraudulent and deceitful representation that they had a showroom in Hungary and they would make the payment of the goods supplied. It was also contended that after purchasing the goods from the complainant these petitioners had also sold it to other parties and those purchasers of the goods from the petitioners are prosecution witnesses. It was also contended that the petitioner mohit Kumar Garg had also received the goods supplied and was representing his uncle Sudhir Kumar Gupta and was managing the affairs of the business on behalf of Sudhir Kumar Gupta and, therefore, his complicity with Sudhir Kumar Gupta is established by the material evidence which has been collected on record.