Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SL TREHAN versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SL TREHAN v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 6845 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2976 (28 November 2006)

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan

At

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

ORDER

In

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6845/06

S.L. Trehan Vs. State of Rajasthan

Date Of Order :: 29th November, 2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal

Mr. S.S. Hora, counsel for petitioner.

Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor for State.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, counsel for complainant. ....................

Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner as well as complainant, learned

Public Prosecutor for the State, perused the case diary and other material produced during the course of arguments.

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner that the accused petitioner is father of the complainant who purchased the factory situated at Sudarshan Industrial Area,

Jaipur for his three unemployed sons including the complainant Deepak from his life savings who could not properly manage the factory and suffered heavy losses and a suit for recovery of debts was filed by the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur before the Debts Recovery Tribunal,

Jaipur. It is also submitted that the property was released by the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 10/10/2001 when rupees 26 lakhs were deposited in the bank by the accused petitioner through his two sons Sanjay and Pankaj and papers were handed over to them by the orders of Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. It is also submitted that during the settlement proceedings with the bank the complainant Deepak gave a 'Hundi' of

Rs.8,66,600/- to the petitioner and a cheque against it but the said cheque was dishonoured, therefore the accused petitioner filed a complaint against Deepak under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and just to save himself from that complaint, the complainant in the collusion with some police officials filed a report on 27/2/1996 to the effect that the cheque got lost and a complaint of theft was lodged against the accused petitioner in which the concerned trial court found that the said report was fake because the form on which the report was written was printed on 7.12.1996 whereas the report was dated 27.2.1996 and the accused petitioner was arrested in that matter and remained in custody for about ten days but thereafter on the compromise with the accused petitioner, the complainant Deepak was released on bail. It is also submitted that the complainant filed a suit but the same was dismissed and thereafter only just to harass the accused petitioner and his two other sons this false complaint was lodged. It is also submitted that retirement deed dated 27/9/1999 was signed by the complainant Deepak and his two brothers Sanjay Trehan and Pankaj Trehan who were the partners of M/s. S.N. Industries which was witnessed by the accused petitioner and one

Ramkishore Agarwal and form 'E' was also signed by the complainant and his two other partners

Sanjay Trehan and Pankaj Trehan. It is also submitted that one deed dated 2/6/2005 allegedly written by the complainant Deepak which appears to be attested by the notary at Delhi about which accused petitioner is not aware which might have been sent directly by the complainant making his forged signatures just to take revenge and implicate the accused petitioner and his two sons. It is also submitted that FSL report regarding the signatures of the complainant on form 'E' and retirement deed is not exhaustive while the said documents were examined by Manocha Forensic Consultancy whereby after detailed and critical examination it was found that signatures on the disputed documents i.e. Form 'E' and retirement deed have been written by the same person who signed over the admitted documents. It is also submitted that two other co-accused persons Sanjay and Pankaj have filed a petition under section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and their arrest has been stayed by the coordinate bench of this

Court. It is also submitted that the accused petitioner is a heart patient and an old person of about 74 years of age. It is also submitted that the Court can also compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures by invoking the provisions of section 73 of the

Evidence Act or the same may further be examined by some independent agency. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner has already been interrogated by the police in the present matter.

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that just to grab the factory land and property the signatures of the complainant Deepak were forged on the retirement deed and form 'E' which is clear from the FSL report. It is also submitted that the accused petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents and he has previously been convicted in some cases.

It is also submitted that suit was filed in the year 1999 while the retirement deed was produced in the year 2005 which also shows that signatures on the deed are not genuine.

Having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, nature of accusation, material on record, also keeping in view that the accused petitioner is father of the complainant and only witness of the retirement deed and the fact of long dispute between the parties and the findings on the FSL report as well as report of

Manocha Forensic Consultancy which is headed by the former Additional Director, Police Forensic

Science Lab, Rajasthan and also keeping in view that the coordinate bench has stayed the arrest of two other co-accused persons who were the signatories and partners of the firm M/s. S.N.

Industries and also the fact that accused petitioner has already been interrogated by the police and other facts and circumstances, without making any observation on merits, I deem it proper to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to accused petitioner S.L. Trehan.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner S.L. Trehan S/o. Late R.M.

Trehan, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer in FIR

No.38/2006 registered at Police Station Mahesh

Nagar, Jaipur provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Investigating

Officer on the following conditions :- 1. that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that he 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and 3. that he shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

(J.R. Goyal),J

VS Shekhawat/-

Jr. P.A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.