Allowed

Vikash Sharma S/O Shri Kajodmal Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2021CRLMB/12383/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in multiple criminal matters involving offences under the IPC, Chit Fund Act, and Income Tax Act. The court observed a compromise with the main accused and proceedings against the company, deeming it just to release the petitioner on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, subject to conditions of interrogation, non-interference, and not leaving India.

Vikash Sharma S/O Shri Kajodmal Sharma Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12320/2021

¶3

Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Kajodmal Sharma, R/o Mehandi Ka Baas Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir Amer Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Accused/Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12382/2021

¶10

Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Kajodmal Sharma, R/o Mehandi Ka Baas Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir Amer Jaipur Raj.

¶11

----Accused/Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12383/2021 Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Kajodmal Sharma, R/o Mehandi Ka Baas Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir Amer Jaipur Raj.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Accused/Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12413/2021 Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Kajodmal Sharma, R/o Mehandi Ka Baas Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir Amer Jaipur Raj.

¶21

----Accused/Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12445/2021

¶26

(2 of 4)

¶27

[CRLMB-12320/2021]

¶28

Vikash Sharma Son Of Shri Kajodmal Sharma, Resident Of Mehandi Ka Baas, Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir, Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir, Amer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶29

----Accused/Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶32

----Respondent

¶33

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12490/2021 Vikash Sharma Son Of Shri Kajodmal Sharma, Resident Of Mehandi Ka Baas, Behind Maliyo Ka Mandir, Near Abhinav Vidhya Mandir, Amer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶34

----Accused/Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order

¶40

28/09/2021

¶41

The applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIRs No.357/2018, 164/2019, 163/2019, 616/2018, 682/2019 & 620/2018 registered at Police Station Amer, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 420, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C., 420 & 406 of IPC, 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC, 420 & 406 of IPC & 420 & 406 of IPC respectively and later on for the offence under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C. and Section 3, 4, 5, & 6 of Chit Fund & Money Circulation (Banning) Act & Section 66 of I.T. Act.

¶42

(3 of 4)

¶43

[CRLMB-12320/2021]

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he himself was one of the investors in Jithna Digital Private Limited and as a matter of fact, he himself stands cheated by the company officials. Drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.16, Jaipur Metropolitan, learned counsel submitted that on the complaint filed by him, cognizance under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 (for brevity “the Act of 1881”) has been taken by the learned trial Court against the company and its Managing Director. Learned counsel submitted that he has neither been any office bearer in the company nor, he is beneficiary of the amount paid by the complainant to the company. He submitted that the complainant has already entered into compromise with main accused Dalchand Narura, Managing director of the company and his custodial interrogation is not warranted. He, therefore, prayed for benefit of pre-arrest bail for the petitioner.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications.

¶46

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the nature of allegations against him, material contained in the case diary as well as available on record and especially compromise of the complainant with the main accused, Dalchand Narura, Managing Director of the company and the order dated 18.07.2019 taking cognizance against the company and its Managing Director under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 on the complaint filed by the petitioner; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on prearrest bail.

¶47

(4 of 4)

¶48

[CRLMB-12320/2021]

¶49

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner in connection with afore-mentioned FIRs registered at concerned Police Station, the petitioner 1.Vikash Sharma S/o Shri Kajodmal Sharma shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶50

(i). that the petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶51

(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

¶52

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶53

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶54

PRAGATI/12-17

Vikash Sharma S/O Shri Kajodmal Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Sharma S/O Shri Kajodmal Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Lal S/O Shri Pannaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Singh Son of Jhamman Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Agarwal S/O Shri Om Prakash Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Datar Singh S/O Shri Rajendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash Sharma S/O Shri Kajodmal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikash Sharma Son of Shri Kajodmal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan