Pankaj vs M/S. Gilson Tools Corporation

The present petition has been led for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in complaint case No.RBT 196/2/07 dated

22.3.2004 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, titled as M/s Gilson Tools Corporation Versus M/s Priya Industries.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissing anticipatory bail application led on behalf of the petitioner.

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 12.01.2012 passed the following order:-

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail to the

petitioner as he apprehends his arrest in pursuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by the

Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar.

The petitioner was declared as a Proclaimed Offender in a private complainant, filed by the

complainant, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel contends

that the offence is bailable and the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the trial Court.

He further submits that for the delay caused due to the petitioner having left abroad, he is ready and

willing to compensate the complainant in monetary terms.

Issue notice of motion for 1.2.2012.

In case petitioner appears before the trial Court on or before 25.1.2012, he shall be released on

interim bail, subject to payment of Rs. 20,000 as costs which shall be disbursed to the complainant.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order dated

12.01.2012 passed by this Court and released on interim bail. He has also contended that costs of Rs. 20,000/- has also been paid by petitioner to the

complainant on 30.04.2012 as is clear from copy of order dated 30.04.2012 passed by learned trial Court.

The petitioner has already appeared before learned trial court and admitted on interim bail and also paid the costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the

complainant.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application led on behalf of

petitioner Pankaj is accepted and order dated 12.01.2012 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to

compliance of any conditions that may deem to have been imposed by learned trial Court.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.