KUNWAR ONKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the second application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short -˜Cr.P.C.) for grant of pre -arrest bail.

(2.) THE petitioner who is one of the entrepreneurs and who holds 18% of share in the Sikkim Distilleries Limited (in short -˜SDL) was appointed as Managing Director as per the provisions contained in the Articles of Association. However, because of business rivalry between him and one Harish Aneja who is the other entrepreneur and shareholder like him in the entrepreneurial group in SDL, he has been ousted by an ex -parte order of injunction passed by the learned District Court, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok in a Title Suit instituted by Shri Aneja by manipulating records of SDL and manufacturing false documents. After the petitioner was so ousted from the position of Managing Director, he left for Delhi on a personal visit. In the meantime, one Shri M.K. Pradhan was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO) by the Board of Governors of the SDL. Soon after the appointment of a new CEO, Shri Aneja hatched a criminal conspiracy with him and got a false FIR filed against the petitioner alleging serious mismanagement, defalcation of accounts and misuse of funds resulting in commission of non -bailable offence. When the petitioner came to know in Delhi about the filing of the FIR, he approached the Additional Sessions Court, Patiala House, New Delhi and got interim transit bail. On the basis of which he rushed to Sikkim and approached the learned Court of the Sessions Judge, East and North Sikkim at Gangtok for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Court granted interim bail but rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail after full hearing. Thus, the petitioner has come before this Court with a present application for anticipatory bail. It is stated in the application that he apprehends arrest in view of the FIR which has been filed and registered against him.

(3.) IT is contended by Shri Upadhyaya, learned senior counsel that the accusations contained in the FIR filed against the petitioner are baseless and not borne out by the records of the SDL. It is thus his contention that the FIR in question was filed with an ulterior motive and with mala fide intention to implicate the petitioner in a false case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the accusation made against the petitioner in the FIR were not only based on genuine grievance, but were of such serious nature that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was indispensable in the present case. It was, therefore, further submitted that this was not a case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.