RANVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. against the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 373/2013 in the matter arising out of FIR No. 126/2012 registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ravindra Saini have contended that in this case, challan against one of the co-accused persons Rohitash Saini has been filed only for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 Penal Code and Sec. 4, 5 and 6 of Chit Fund Scheme and Money Laundering Prohibition Act. Learned counsel have further contended that accused petitioner was nominated as Director of the said Company on 21st Oct., 1992 and he resigned from the post on 24th Jan., 1993 and the same was accepted by the Board of the Company on 26th Jan., 1993. They have further contended that accused petitioner remained in the Books of Accounts as Director only for a period of 3 months' and that too much earlier to the date when the complainant is alleged to have deposited the money with the company. They have further contended that it is clear from the complaint that the money was deposited in the company on 31st Dec., 1997, while resignation of the accused petitioner had already been accepted on 26th Jan., 1993. They have further contended that Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rewari had filed an affidavit alongwith the status report in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 39032 of 2012 on 5th Jan., 2013. In that case, the accused petitioner was made respondent no.8. The police had conducted investigation in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Haryana about the status of the various accused persons and it was reported that nothing incriminating had surfaced against him. Further, they have drawn the attention of this Court towards Sec. 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. They have further contended that in another case No. M-22752 of 2011, Shri Jai Prakash, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi had also submitted an affidavit before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein he affirmed that the accused petitioner after resignation in the year 1993, had no concern with the business. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no case is made out against the accused petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. They have further contended that the complainant has also filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnol regarding the same transaction of INR 50,000.00. They have further contended that in this complaint filed under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, the judgment has been passed that the complainant deposited the sum of INR 50,000.00 in the branch office of the company at Rewari Road, Narnaul, as such the FIR and statement made therein regarding depositing of the money at Gothda, Khetri Nagar office of the company, are absolutely false and they are with ulterior motive. They have further contended that accused petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he has conducted many cases against the aforesaid company, as such he has been falsely implicated in this case. They have further contended that as per the Companies Act, in such cases, it is only the company, which is liable and even the Director cannot be held responsible more particularly when the Company has received the money and failed to repay the same, hence the bail application of the petitioner should be accepted and the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.