[2025:RJ-JP:14004] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2446/2024 Benson Kunjukutty George S/o Kunjukutty Mathew George, R/o Mahadev Nagar, Nandapuri Colony, 22 Godam, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6018/2024 Sagar Birade S/o Balason Birade, R/o Building No. 13 B Wing, Room No. 306, Abhilasha Cooperative Society, Chandiwali Mahada, Sakinaka, Andheri East, Mumbai, 400072. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan Mr. Devashish Pancholi For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Anil Jaiman, SHO (IO), PS Sanganer Sadar, Jaipur Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/03/2025 1. These two instant pre-arrest bail applications have been filed under Section 438 of Cr.PC on behalf of the petitioners, who are having apprehension of arrest in FIR No.69/2024 registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur City (South) (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 384, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that dispute between the parties is purely of civil [2025:RJ-JP:14004] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2446/2024] nature. It is submitted that so far as petitioner- Sagar Birade is concerned, he is simply an employee of the petitioner- Benson Kunjukutty George. It is contended that there no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and custodial interrogation of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. On the last date of hearing, Investigating Officer of this case was directed to remain present before this Court to explain the role of the petitioner. Today, he is present in person and under his instructions, learned State Counsel submits that petitioner- Benson Kunjukutty George and complainant were partners in a firm and certain gold was supplied by complainant to the petitioner. It is submitted that admittedly, 4kg and 155gms of gold has already been returned to the complainant. It has been alleged by the complainant that 5kg and 950gms of gold was supplied by the complainant to the petitioner- Benson Kunjukutty George but no receipt is available in this regard. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant submits that bill of purchasing 5kg and 950 gms of gold is available on record and as per the terms and conditions of the partnership, entire work was to be done by the petitioner and role of the complainant was simply to provide the raw material. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the both the parties, especially the fact that petitioner- Benson Kunjukutty George has joined the investigation, so also [2025:RJ-JP:14004] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2446/2024] considering the nature of dispute and absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioners, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these anticipatory bail applications. 7. The anticipatory bail applications are allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur City (South) (Rajasthan) in F.I.R. No.69/2024 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners- (1) Benson Kunjukutty George S/o Kunjukutty Mathew George and (2) Sagar Birade S/o Balason Birade, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without prior permission of the court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /289-290