RATHORE, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record placed by the petitioner as well as the complainant.
(2.) THE accused-petitioner was taken in custody on 13. 5. 2008 from his office at Chennai. THE instant case arises out of the First Information Report (No. 230/07) registered at Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar for the offences, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Subsequently, the accused-petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras for bail under Section 438 Cr. P. C. The High Court of Madras passed an order on 5. 1. 2008, whereby anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner for a period of three weeks. One of the condition in the said order was that the petitioner shall also approach the concerned jurisdictional Court for anticipatory bail within a period of three weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute between the parties is on account of commercial transactions. He further submits that an agreement was entered into between the parties on 6. 3. 2006 at Chennai and in furtherance thereof, the complainant party had paid an amount about Rs. 6 lacs. He also submits that later on a notice was given on 15. 10. 2007 by the petitioner Company for termination of the said agreement. Therefore, he submits that the dispute which is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings against the accused petitioner is in the nature of a civil dispute arising out of the Franchise agreement entered into by the parties. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application. According to the counsel for the complainant, after the execution of the agreement on 6. 3. 2006, the work started but it was the petitioner Company who did not perform their part of providing Master Trainer etc. so that the complainant firm could proceed further and a lot of amount which was spent by them for advertisements, etc. is totally lost. He placed before me some documents regarding e-mails sent by the complainant and has submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, it was the petitioner Company who was to provide many facilities like Master Trainer etc. In the last, he submitted that the complainant Firm had complied with the terms of the agreement but the Company of the petitioner did not comply the same. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. In this case, where the petitioner has been taken into custody, a dispute arose between the parties in which they had agreed for Franchise and an agreement to that effect was executed on 6. 3. 2006 at Chennai. A bare look to the said agreement goes to show that Clause XI provides for the statutory Clauses and Clause XIII provides for termination. Further Clause XIII (I) provides that the agreement shall stand terminated forthwith at the option of the Company of the petitioner. Similarly Clause XV provides for the jurisdiction in case of a dispute arising from the out of the agreement and also the Arbitration Clause. In this case, the notice for termination was given by the petitioner Company on 15. 10. 2007. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it emerges that the whole dispute has arisen after the execution of the agreement and in respect of compliance of the same.
(3.) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances and the nature of accusation against the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner K. Kumaran S/o Krishnapurti in F. I. R. No. 230/2007, Police Station Arawali Vihar, Distt. Alwar, shall be released; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two surety bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. .;