SANJAY JAIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications are taken together as they arise out of the same FIR. The petitioner (Sanjay Jain) Is the cousin brother of the main accused (Pramod Jain) and the petitioner (Parwati Jain) is the wife of the main accused (Pramod Jain). It is stated by the learned Counsel for the State on instructions from Inspector Dharamveer that the main accused (Pramod Jain) had been taken into custody and has been released on regular bail after 25 days in custody. The case of the prosecution Is that the complainants had been deceived into depositing sums of money amounting to Rs. 6.5 lakhs by way of fixed deposits with the Company known as M/s. Ju-Ju Finance and Leasing Ltd. The said amounts were not returned on maturity and there - fore the case was registered against the said Company and its Directors.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioner (Sanjay Jain) had resigned as a Director of the Company w.e.f. 11.7.2002 and the same has been notified to the Registrar of Companies on 28.7.2002, as recorded in Form 32 issued under the Companies Act. 1956. Similarly, the petitioner (Parwati Jain) also resigned as a Director on 18.6.2002. The deposits made by the complainants were to mature in the end of December. 2002 and Jan., 2003. Therefore, the repayment would have become due only towards the end of December. 2002 and Jan., 2003, when these petitioners were not the Directors in the said Company. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that no money have been transferred from the Company's account to the present petitioners during the period the deposits were taken. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners in the event of their arrest shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20.000.00each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

(3.) The applications stand disposed off. Applications Disposed Off.