GURPREET SINGH KOHLI Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/accused, a Director of Trans Asia Distribution Ltd. having its office at Mauritius Free Port Development (MFD), Freeport Zone-5, Mer Rouge, Port Louis, Mauritius, has been arrested by Police Station Crime Branch in case FIR No. 13 of 2011 under section 409, 420 RPC. The arrest has been effected at Worli, Mumbai on 4.11.2011 and the petitioner has been eversince in Police custody and thereafter in Judicial custody.

(2.) Through medium of instant petition, petitioner seeks bail on the grounds set out therein. It is averred that the transaction of which the criminal case is an off shoot, is a contractual in character and the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner essentially is civil in nature. The petitioner's/accused's case is that a civil dispute cannot be given colour and complexion of an offence merely because the contract between the petitioner and the contractor, has not been performed/acted upon, for the reasons beyond control of the petitioner/accused. It is next urged that investigation has been concluded and custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused is no more required, so as to take the investigation to its logical end. The bail application is also based on health grounds. It is pleaded that the petitioner/is a patient of epilepsy, has been under continuous medical treatment and his continuous custody is likely to further deteriorate his condition.

(3.) The petition is opposed on the grounds that the investigation has prima facie established commission of offence punishable under section 409, 420 RPC by the petitioner and that the petitioner/accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. It is denied that the dispute is civil in nature and that there is no room for intervention by the police in the matter or the complainant had no reason to set Police machinery into motion. It is further pleaded that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu and thereafter Sessions Judge Jammu, have rightly rejected the earlier applications filed by the petitioner for his enlargement on bail and there is no reason for this court to take a view different from one taken by the Courts below.