Dismissed

Padam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Apr 2023CRLMB/2216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed multiple anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for Sheetal and Padam, who faced allegations of cheating and forgery involving the misappropriation of goods worth crores. The Court held that custodial investigation was necessary to uncover the crime.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Sheetal and Padam are dismissed.

Padam Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/007873]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1235/2023

¶4

Sheetal Mittal S/o Shri Anil, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1718/2023

¶10

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1720/2023

¶16

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1722/2023

¶22

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶26

----Respondent

¶27

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1724/2023

¶28

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶29

----Petitioner

¶30

Versus

¶31

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶32

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1726/2023

¶33

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10,

¶34

(2 of 8)

¶35

[2023/RJJD/007873]

¶36

Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶37

----Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶40

----Respondent

¶41

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1727/2023

¶42

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶43

----Petitioner

¶44

Versus

¶45

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶46

----Respondent

¶47

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1729/2023

¶48

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶49

----Petitioner

¶50

Versus

¶51

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶52

----Respondent

¶53

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1730/2023

¶54

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶58

----Respondent

¶59

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1962/2023

¶60

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Delhi - East (India).

¶61

----Petitioner

¶62

Versus

¶63

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶64

----Respondent

¶65

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2205/2023

¶66

Padam S/o Lt. Sh. Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, Jwala Nagar, Delhi East (India).

----Petitioner

Versus

(3 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/007873]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶72

----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2207/2023 Padam S/o Lt. Sh. Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi-East (India).

¶73

----Petitioner

¶74

Versus

¶75

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶76

----Respondent

¶77

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2208/2023

¶78

Padam S/o Lt. Sh. Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi-East (India).

¶79

----Petitioner

¶80

Versus

¶81

State, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶82

----Respondent

¶83

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2209/2023

¶84

Padam S/o Lt. Sh. Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi-East (India).

¶85

----Petitioner

¶86

Versus

¶87

State, Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶88

----Respondent

¶89

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2213/2023

¶90

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi - East (India)

¶91

----Petitioner

¶92

Versus

¶93

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajashtan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶94

----Respondent

¶95

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2214/2023

¶96

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi - East (India)

¶97

----Petitioner

¶98

Versus

¶99

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajashtan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶100

----Respondent

¶101

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2216/2023

¶102

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi - East (India)

----Petitioner

Versus

(4 of 8)

[2023/RJJD/007873]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajashtan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondent

¶108

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2218/2023

¶109

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi - East (India)

¶110

----Petitioner

¶111

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. ----Respondent

¶112

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2215/2023

¶113

Padam S/o Late Shri Jyoti Prakash, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jwala Nagar, Sahadara, Delhi - East (India)

¶114

----Petitioner

¶115

Versus

¶116

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶117

----Respondent

¶118

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1873/2023

¶119

Sheetal S/o Sh. Anil, Aged About 42 Years, H.no. 77/c-10, Amukeshnagar, J-Gopal Gupta Gali, Glasiyar Gular Road, Sahadara, Delhi-East.

¶120

----Petitioner

¶121

State Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur.	Versus Through Pp, Rajasthan High Court, ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Bhavit Sharma
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

¶122

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶123

Order

¶124

06/04/2023

¶125

The instant bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners – Sheetal and Padam, apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR Nos. 436/2022, 524/2022, 522/2022, 503/2022, 526/2022, 530/2022, 519/2022, 529/2022,

¶126

[2023/RJJD/007873] (5 of 8)

¶127

525/2022, 436/2022, 519/2022, 525/2022, 503/2022, 529/2022, 526/2022, 522/2022, 524/2022, 530/2022, 435/2022 & 435/2022 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC.

¶128

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sheetal and Padam argued that the petitioners are engaged in trade and business at Delhi and received certain goods from the accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod. He further argued that the petitioners did not have any direct involvement in the alleged crime in question and they are consumers only and have been falsely implicated in this FIRs lodged by different complainants viz. Kamlesh Gokhru, Naresh Godha, Sushil Sharma, Sandeep Kothari, Suresh Somani, Purshottam Mundra, Sanjay Kumar Jain, Madhu Laddha, Veeraj Kumar Jain and Mahendra Teli at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara.

¶129

Learned counsel further argued that the alleged crime in question is purely of civil nature and it is a case of alleged nonpayment of dues and not that of cheating and like offences. It is argued that police has also recovered goods in question and there is no need of custodial investigation from the accused-petitioners, therefore, their applications seeking anticipatory bail may be allowed.

¶130

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail applications and submitted that from the investigation the documents submitted by the accused-petitioners during the course of investigation were found to be fabricated as the GST number, name of the Firm and other details were found to be non existent.

¶131

[2023/RJJD/007873]

¶132

(6 of 8)

¶133

He further submitted that accused petitioners Sheetal and Padam submitted a forged bill indicating the purchase of the recovered clothes and further the investigation also reveals that accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod purchased the clothes from the above stated complainants and after inducing them to deliver the goods, supplied the clothes to the present petitioners and present petitioners illegally sold the same goods in the market, thus accused-petitioners alongwith accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod duped the complainants and causing them loss in tune to approximately rupees three crores.

¶134

He further argued that the investigation also discloses that initially accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod paid some amount to the complainants and later on fled away from the alleged place of business, switched off their mobiles and in a conspiracy with the petitioners misappropriated the above amount, therefore, it is a case of cheating & fraud and custodial investigation may lead to further clues regarding the misappropriated goods.

¶135

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on the record.

¶136

From the perusal of the case diaries and the investigation, so far taken place, it is apparent that accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod purchased the goods from the complainants named in the various FIRs and after constituting the fake firm induced the complainants to sold their goods and later on fled away from the place of business, switched off their mobiles and in

¶137

[2023/RJJD/007873]

¶138

(7 of 8)

¶139

conspiracy with the present petitioners misappropriated the goods received from complainant and illegally sold it in the market.

¶140

The investigation also reveals that the accused-petitioners submitted a forged bill showing the purchase of the recovered clothes indicating a fake Firm viz. Vandana Fabrics and also illegally supplied the goods in the market. Thus, causing loss to the complainants in tune of approximately rupees three crores. It is further to notice that the so called documents submitted by the accused-petitioners, stating the purchase of clothes, were found to be forged and fabricated as the GST number, name of the Firm and other details were non existing. The investigation further demonstrates that accused-petitioners were constantly in touch with main accused Harsh Garg and Sarvesh alias Vinod through calls indicating their active role in commission of the crime and deceiving the complainants by extracting money in tune to rupees three crores.

¶141

The above narration itself is adequate and demonstrates that the accused persons were hand in glove with each other to squeez the money from the complainants. It is also pertinent to note that an investigation against the accused persons is still pending and, therefore, custodial investigation may further lead to recovery and disclosure of facts for the allegedly misappropriated goods.

¶142

The petitioners have so far evaded the custodial investigation by filing the criminal misc. petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., which resultantly culminated in its dismissal and a further effort to escape from the arrest through the present bail applications, also miserably errs.

¶143

(8 of 8)

¶144

[2023/RJJD/007873]

¶145

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners.

¶146

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioners Sheetal and Padam are dismissed.

¶147

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶148

AK Chouhan/-

Padam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karanveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hitesh Vs U.O.I.

Sheetal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh @ Yogesh Lohar Vs State of Rajasthan