[2025:RJ-JP:12719] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 8454/2024 Giriraj Prasad Gupta S/o Ghanshyam Gupta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 62A, Jai Karni Nagar, Old 34 Bus Stand, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Anuraj Pareek for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/01/2025 1. This is second bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who is apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.891/2023 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City, South for offences under Sections 408, 420 IPC. Investigation is being conducted for offences under Sections 420, 408 and 120B IPC. 2. By order dated 15.05.2024, first bail application (No.1411/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed for want for prosecution. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working for the complainant since 2016 sincerely but when he was [2025:RJ-JP:12719] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8454/2024] not paid salary for a long time, he asked for payment of his due salary. But the complainant and her husband with malafide intention, refused to pay salary to the petitioner and his wife, due to which, there occurred dispute between them. The complainant’s husband also gave beatings to the petitioner. It is submitted that on 19.10.2023, FIR No.910/2023 has been lodged by the petitioner herein against the complainant’s husband at Police Station Shipra Path for offences under Sections 323, 341, 384, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 4. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents. It is also contended that it is alleged against the petitioner that he took a loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the complainant but did not return the same. In this regard, counsel submits that the petitioner has already repaid the same. In terms of the order dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner has already joined investigation. Co-accused Neeti Gupta has already been granted facility of anticipatory bail. Police statement of CA Piyush Mittal has already been recorded wherein it has come out that he did not conduct physical verification of the stock. The custody of the petitioner is not required for any fruitful purpose. He thus, prays that instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC may kindly be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has joined the investigation. 6. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:12719] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8454/2024] 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that petitioner has joined the investigation, cross FIR has also been registered by the petitioner against the complainant’s husband and co-accused has already been granted benefit of pre-arrest bail but without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application. 8. This second anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No.891/2023 Police Station Shipra Path, District Jaipur City, South, he shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :- (i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner 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 petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733