NATHMAL SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for grant of bail pending trial has been filed by accused petitioner Nathmal Soni, who is accused of committing offence under Section 306 IPC, in FIR No. 315/2010 registered at Police Station, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

(2.) It is contended by the son of the petitioner that the petitioner had business transactions with deceased Sushil Kumar Sharma and that petitioner had borrowed money from him on different dates, the total of which was Rs. 1,65,700/-. The allegation that the petitioner had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased is baseless. Petitioner had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 5,000/-, 25,000/-, 15,000/-, 50,000/-, 50,000/- and 55000/- on six different occasions, respectively. Petitioner used to make payment of interest to the deceased and, in fact, when deceased insisted for payment, he expressed his inability to make entire payment at one go and rather gave written acknowledgments on two stamp of Rs. 100/- each on 28th June, 2010, one for for a sum of Rs. 40,700/- and another for a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/-, clearly mentioning that he would make payment of interest by 15th of every month and in case of first, he shall make entire payment of Rs. 40,700/- up to 1st July, 2011 and in another matter, he would continue to pay a Sum of Rs. 30000/- in the month of April of every year, apart from making payment of a sum of Rs. 2900/- every month. Even then, the deceased again approached the petitioner at his residence on the fateful day and insisted for making out-right payment and on expressing his inability to do so, deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide. Suicide note also admits of money transaction between the petitioner and the deceased. It is further contended that such suicide committed for non-payment of borrowed money cannot be said to have been abated by the petitioner. Reliance in this connection is placed on the judgments in Manoj Kumar Vs. State,2009 1 RCC 381, Ved Prakash Vs. State of MP, 1995 CrLJ 893) and Manish Kumar Vs. State, 1995 CrLJ 3066).

(3.) Lastly, it is contended that the petitioner is in jail since July, 2010. Challan has already been presented on 1st September, 2010 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time.