ARUN RUNGTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASHTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner, learned P. P. for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that the complainant has already filed a complaint u/s 138 Cr. P. C. and the present prosecution, which has been lodged u/ss 420, 406, 409, 120-B is an after-thought so as to pressurize the accused petitioner to come to the terms. Learned Counsel also invited the attention of this Court towards the bill/invoice issued by the complainant firm and argued that the accused petitioner is not in the picture while the goods have been sent to M/s bahubali, who is accused No. 2. Learned counsel also submitted that a legal notice (Annexure 1) was addressed to Vinod kumar Agarwal, accused No. 3, expressing that the accused petitioner is not trading in the mustard oil and no order as alleged was given on behalf of the accused petitioner for mustard oil to him but no reply was received by him. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Bhuba and Ors. v. State of rajasthan.

(3.) LEARNED P. P. opposed the bail on the ground that the accused No. 3 is agent of accused No. 1 and as such he is liable for the offence alleged.