Dismissed

Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2021CRLMB/9028/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Rajasthan disposed of an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the plea that the matter was of civil nature and found the allegations of cheating and breach of trust serious, ruling against granting bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application is dismissed; petitioner is not considered a fit case for bail.

Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi Prasad Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9028/2021

¶3

Manish Kakrania S/o Shri Devi Prasad, Resident Of Plot No.6 , Queens Park, Flat No. 3B, Ballygunge, Circus Avenue, Kolkata.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Mahendra Singh,
	Mr.	Akash Shrivastava
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S. S. Ola,PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

16/08/2021

¶12

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.219/2021 registered at Police Station Sanganer, Sadar, Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Sections 420, 409 and 120B of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been wrongly implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare reading of FIR reveals that this matter pertains to civil nature but criminal colour has been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Uday Chand and Ors. Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister, J & K and Ors. (Criminal

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-9028/2021]

¶17

Miscellaneous Petitions No.1016-1021 of 1981) decided on 12.03.1981.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner and other persons were Directors in Citylife Retail Private Limited Company and they had taken cloths of lacs of rupees from the complainant and other persons. They had not paid single penny. Petitioner had sold the said company to other person. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the bail application be dismissed.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by both the parties.

¶20

Allegation levelled against the petitioner is that the petitioner was Director of Citylife Retail Private Limited Company and he had taken cloths of lacs of rupees from the complainant. He had not paid the amount to the complainant and sold the company to other person. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶22

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶23

Seema/22

Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kakrania S/O Shri Devi Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohandai D/O Shri Surjan Singh W/O Kuljeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Shri Surjansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dheeraj Kumar S/O Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Nadeem Qureshi S/O Liyakat Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajanti Devi W/O Harikesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Lal Meena S/O Goverdhan Meena Vs State of Rajasthan