VIKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIRs No.357/2018, 164/2019, 163/2019, 616/2018, 682/2019 & 620/2018 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C., 420 & 406 of IPC, 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, 420 & 406 of IPC & 420 & 406 of IPC respectively and later on for the offence under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3, 4, 5, & 6 of Chit Fund & Money Circulation (Banning) Act & Section 66 of I.T. Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he himself was one of the investors in Jithna Digital Private Limited and as a matter of fact, he himself stands cheated by the company officials. Drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan, learned counsel submitted that on the complaint filed by him, cognizance under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 (for brevity "the Act of 1881") has been taken by the learned trial Court against the company and its Managing Director. Learned counsel submitted that he has neither been any office bearer in the company nor, he is beneficiary of the amount paid by the complainant to the company. He submitted that the complainant has already entered into compromise with main accused Dalchand Narura, Managing director of the company and his custodial interrogation is not warranted. He, therefore, prayed for benefit of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the nature of allegations against him, material contained in the case diary as well as available on record and especially compromise of the complainant with the main accused, Dalchand Narura, Managing Director of the company and the order dated 18.07.2019 taking cognizance against the company and its Managing Director under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 on the complaint filed by the petitioner; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on pre- arrest bail.