This order rejects two anticipatory bail applications arising from FIRs involving alleged misappropriation of investor funds and cheating offences. The High Court declined to grant relief without expressing an opinion on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10538/2021
Aashish S/o Krishnakant Tripathi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No.
142, Aawas Vikas Kalyanpura, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6629/2021
Aashish S/o Krishnakant Tripathi, Aged About 37 Years, House No.
142, Aawas Vikas Kalyanpur, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P.
Mr. Lakpal Singh, SI, Kotwali, Chittorgarh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
15/11/2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR Nos.144/2019 and 384/2017 registered at Police Station Chittorgarh, District Chittogarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Chit Fund Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in both the cases, the petitioner has wrongly been involved whereas he is neither
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-10538/2021]
the Director of the Company nor has received any amount from any of the investors.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
Mr. Lakpal Singh, SI, Kotwali, Chittorgarh, Investigating Officer present in person has submitted that petitioner is one of the Director of the Company in question, which received amount from investors for investment purpose. It is submitted that another Director of the Company namely Alok Tripathi has been arrested and was enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the present cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal arguments submitted that from his side, a public notice in the public newspaper has been got published that he has no connection/communication with his brother Alok Tripathi and that the petitioner has already resigned from directorship of the aforesaid Company.
From perusal of the case diary, it appears that prior to the two FIR in question, previous cases were also of alike nature lodged against the petitioner. As per Investigating Officer, the amount was received by the Company, when petitioner was one of the Director. Looking to the nature of accusation and the involvement of petitioner along with certain persons in misappropriation of the amount from several investors, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Accordingly, both these applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
137-Taruna/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC and the Chit Fund Act.
Whether the petitioner, who has resigned and denied involvement, is entitled to anticipatory bail despite prior similar accusations.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Aashish
State
Sudeesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
