MANISH AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. The petitioner apprehends her arrest in connection with FIR No.214/2018 of P.S. Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B I.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the petitioner a is partner of Chartered Account Firm Pvt. Ltd. situated in Agra and vide letter dated 6.11.2014, he was authorized to audit account books of Gaushala situated at Sanchore, District Jalore (complainant) for two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner audited the accounts of the complainant-Gaushala for two years and thereafter the audit work of the Gaushala was assigned to somebody else. It is submitted that allegation against the petitioner to the effect that while auditing the accounts work of the complainant Gaushala, he made certain false entries regarding loans taken by Gaushala from different persons, is absolutely false. It is argued that the petitioner had made these entries as per the accounts of Gaushala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that another allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he was instrumental of preparation of forged loan agreement executed between Mehandiratta Association and complainant Gaushala, however, he is neither signatory of the said agreement nor he was present at the time of execution of the said agreement. Learned counsel has further submitted that another allegation of preparation of forged pronote of co-accused Deva Ram on behalf of the complainant Gaushala is also false. It is argued that the petitioner is neither signatury of the said Pronote dated 6.2.2018 nor he was present at the time of preparing the Pronote. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that so far as the dispute regarding the loan agreement as well as pronote executed on behalf of the complainant Gaushala are concerned, till date, the matter is pending before the Arbitrator and from this, it is clear that the dispute between the complainant and Mehandiratta Associates is purely of civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has already joined investigation and has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the custodial interrogation is not required from him. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have submitted that the petitioner, while auditing the accounts of Gaushala, had made several false entries showing that the complainant Gaushala had taken loan of crores of rupees from different persons, whereas, as a matter of fact, the complainant Gaushala had never taken loan from those persons. It is also submitted that the petitioner, being a Chartered Accountant of the complainant Gaushala, having knowledge about the financial conditions of it, had entered into a conspiracy with other co- accused person and prepared a forged loan agreement as well as a pronote said to have been executed by the authorized representative of the Gaushala on the basis of that, the co- accused persons have initiated proceedings against the complainant for recovery of the said loan amount. It is further submitted that owner of Mehandiratta Associates, in favour of whom, alleged forged agreement has been executed, is near relative of the petitioner and the co-accused persons and the petitioner conspired with each other with intention to cheat the complainant Gaushala. It is, therefore, submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the case diary.