The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The further contention is that first informant has been aware about all agreements and activities conducted by the firm M/s. Rakesh Gupta and Company and he signed all the relevant documents executed by the firm; unfortunately due to recession in the property market, and firm came under the financial crisis, so the first informant became dishonest and started levelling false and fabricated allegations against the applicant; that the first informant cooked up a false, frivolous, fabricated and concocted story and lodged first information report against the applicant as well as three others namely Smt. Geeta Agrawal, Rishabh Gupta and Kamal Kumar to harass and pressurize the applicant and others with malafide and malicious intention to fulfill his ulterior motive; that from the perusal of first information itself, the case is purely of civil nature and no criminal offence is made out against the applicant; that para 16 of the partnership deed, the clause is stipulated that in case all the disputes or differences that may be arisen between the parties shall be settled by arbitration and the decision of the arbitrators shall be final and binding on all parties of the partnership deed. However, the first informant without invoking the said clause falsely lodged the present case against the applicant and others, suppressing the material facts. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.11.2017 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. It has been pointed out that the criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the bail application.
