Sandhiya Jain (Smt.) vs State of Raj.

M.C. Sharma, J.—This criminal misc. bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner in FIR No. 103/2012 under sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Chakrapani Gautam filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 6 Kota against the accused petitioner and other co-accused persons. The Judicial Magistrate forwarded the same to the SHO, Police Station, Mahaveer Nagar, Kota u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. The SHO Mahaveer Nagar registered FIR No. 103/2012 against the accused petitioner and co-accused persons for offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC.

It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the complainant with an ulterior motive filed the complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is a widow lady and serving in the Government School where the wife of the complainant is working. The son of the accused petitioner and the complainant are school mate and friend and very close to each other. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the police is bent upon to arrest the petitioner hence he has filed application for bail before the Sessions Judge u/s 438 Cr.P.C, who vide order dated 30.3.2012 declined the prayer of the accused petitioner. The Sessions Judge, Kota in its order dated 30.3.2012 observed as under:

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application of the accused petitioner and stated that at this stage in such an offence involving 8 lac rupees, the accused petitioner is not entitled to be given the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the order passed by the Sessions Judge and the material made available to me. I am in agreement with the order of the Sessions Judge. According to the version of the petitioner herself that her son is absconding. Huge money of the complainant has been taken away and the cheques issued for some money was also dishonoured by the Bank. Without commenting on the merits of the case which will either way prejudice the case of the parties, at this stage it is not a fit case in which the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. can be granted to the accused petitioner. This criminal misc. bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.