GAURAV BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sagar Mehrotra and Sri Vinayak Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant through Video-Conferencing. Sri Rishi Chaddha, learned A.G.A. for the State is present in person. This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0301 of 2020 under section 420 I.P.C. Police Station Sadabad Kotwali, District Hathras during pendency of investigation.

(2.) As per F.I.R. which has been lodged through provision of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the informant who is proprietor of Gayatri Refrigeration has submitted that Gayatri Refrigeration was having an agreement /contract with Daikin Air-conditioning (India) Private Limited for providing service and some copper was being supplied at a higher rate continuously by the accused side to the complainant side which was resisted but a threat was given by the side of accused to take supply of this copper at higher rate failing which the contract shall be cancelled. Under that threat, forcibly huge amount was got credited in the personal account no. 2010101026679 in Canara Bank and in account No. 10716197152 of State Bank of India which were belonging to the employees of the accused applicants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he has apprehension of imminent arrest. Submission is that the said allegation is absolutely false. Present applicant was Assistant General Manager of the said firm, Gayatri Refrigeration. The agreement has been entered into between two sides which has taken effect from 15.04.2014 and continued till 21.03.2020 and the agreement is annexed at annexure 2. Attention is also drawn of the Court towards Arbitration Clause which is annexed at page no. 43 of the paper-book at para no. 12 that if any dispute in future arises, the same shall be resolved amicably through this clause but the same was not done by the informant side. Attention is also drawn of the Court towards the forged billing done from the side of informant which was suspected and to prove that, attention of the Court is drawn towards the communication made by employee of the accused, Rajesh Tomar which is annexed at page no. 49 of the paper book, pursuant to which matter was taken up with the informant side to explain the same by coming in person, the copies regarding the same is annexed at page no. 52 of the paper book, thereafter instead of clarifying the position, a wrong legal notice was sent by the informant side alleging therein that forcibly two employees of the company of the accused, Ravindra Kumar and Rohit Kumar have got huge amount credited in their account. The said legal notice is annexed at page nos. 54-56 of the paper book. After receiving of the said notice, reply was given by the accused side which is at page no. 58 of the paper book that they had nothing to do with the said transaction which is said to be made between the said two persons and informant, thereafter second notice was issued from the side of informant reiterating the earlier version. Thereafter this false F.I.R. has been lodged. He has no criminal history; this case relates to business transaction. If released on bail he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.