VINOD JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

(2.) Learned counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is stated that out of 1,50,000/- shares transferred in the name of Amay Home Service, only 2250 shares are held by Vinod Jain. The Amay Home Service is held mainly by Rohit Suri, who entered into transaction sometime in the month of December, 2008. Petitioner became Director in the year 2009. Looking to aforesaid, main holder of the company is Rohit Suri and his family. The allegations against the petitioner are mainly for commissioning of offence under Section 201 of IPC though with the add of Section 120, allegation for commissioning of offence under Section 420 & 406 of IPC have also been made but there is no material to connect the petitioner for commissioning of offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. It is stated that petitioner is not even named in the FIR and nobody has made allegation for booking and receipt of money by him. Looking to aforesaid and the fact that company is mainly held by Rohit Suri, petitioner may be enlarged on bail this is more so when in the investigation report also, aforesaid facts have come.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this bail application and submits that Amay Home Service is mainly held by Rohit Suri and his family and out of 1,50,000 shares, 2250 shares are in the name of Vinod Jain. It is otherwise the fact that record of the company was not made available, thus offence under Section 201 of IPC is made out against petitioner.