RATHORE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case a private complaint was lodged on 20th June, 1998. He further submits, by relying upon the number of documents which he has filed on record other than charge-sheet, that taking into consideration the case of the complainant as a whole, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. He has submitted that the Mangiska Oil Products Ltd. , Bundi, of which the petitioner is the Managing Director is an oil Company and the complainant had supplied mustard to since 1997, and continued during the period from 1st April, 1998 to 20th April, 1998. The total goods supplied was worth Rs. 79,00,000/- approximately. He has placed reliance on the documents filed on record, particularly the statement of accounts to show that regular transactions were carried on between the parties and up to month of May, 1998 an amount, more than then costs of the goods sent during the period in question, was paid because there were outstanding against the Company of the petitioner of the period prior to 1st April, 1998. He has also submitted that the complainant has initiated proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the Company by giving notice on 18th July, 1998 and the said proceedings are pending in the concerning Court. It is also submitted that the Company of the petitioner has become a sick Unit, on which a liquidator was appointed by the High Court in the year 1999 and neither at the relevant time nor thereafter any claim was filed by the complaint before him. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Company of the petitioner has been regularly buying mustard from the complainant firm and paying for the same from time to time and as such there is no question of any bad intention on their part to commit the offence alleged. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has seriously opposed the bail application and submitted that they did not receive any amount from the Company of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner and other officer bearer of the Company had, from the very beginning, bad intention and received the goods from the complainant firm but did not pay any amount. He has also submitted that when the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned District Judge on 14th October, 1998, for a period of 15 days, the conditions imposed therein were challenged by the petitioner before the High Court but that petition was dismissed on 20th November, 1998. According to him the petitioner and the other office bearer of the Company has committed serious offence of cheating etc. and the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the parties. Detailed arguments have been advanced by both the sides but this Court being conscious of the fact that at the stage of bail application it is not to go into detail examination of evidence or elaborate discussion of the documents on record. However, the material facts of the present case are that both the parties are doing business, one is an Oil Company and the other supply mustard. The business transactions between the parties commenced somewhat in the year 1997 and continued upto the later part of the year 1998. Mustard was supplied and the payments were made by the other side, from time to time. The grievance of the complainant party is that an amount of Rs. 79,00,000/- is due against the Company of the petitioner. When the dispute arose, some cheques were given by the Company of the petitioner but the grievance of the complainant is that they were dishonoured and they had to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statement of account filed on record by the company of the petitioner shows that the payments were made even after 1st April, 1998, though denied by the other side. It is also to be noted that the complainant firm did not raise any claim before the liquidator either at the appropriate time or subsequent to it when it came to know that the company of the petitioner has become sick and the High Court had appointed the liquidator.
(3.) IN a case of similar nature, this High Court in the case of Swaranjit Jain vs. State of Rajasthan, (1981 Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 671) decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. C. Agrawal, as he then was, granted anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused applicant on bail under Section 439 Cr. P. C. It is ordered that the accused applicant Virendra Kumar Mansigka son of Mahavir Prasad Mansigka in FIR No. 430/1998, Police Station Gumanpura, Kota, shall be released on bail; 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. . ;