IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6994/2009 Rahul Jain @ Rahul Sen @ Govind vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Naseemuddin Quazi, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Naseemuddin Quazi Advocate on behalf of the applicant Rahul Jain pertaining to F.I.R. No. 412/2009 at police station Gumanpura, Kota City, in the offences under Sections 406/420 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated. The offences wherein, the petitioner are alleged to have been involved are triable by the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. There is no evidence with regard to entrustment of any property on record. The petitioner has been in custody since 29.06.2009 and he is the only bread earner in the family, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner induced the complainant to deliver the property to him, as a result of which, the complainant gave about Rs. 4 lakhs to the petitioner. When the complainant came to know that the petitioner was a cheat, he asked him to return his money but he did not do so, on the contrary, he offered a proposal that he would mortgage his house in his favour. The cost of the house was evaluated Rs. 6,30,000/- and the petitioner asked the complainant to part with the rest of the money. Since, there was no alternative but to accept the proposal of the petitioner, the complainant gave Rs. 1,80,000/- to the petitioner but at the time of taking possession, it was found that the petitioner had raised a loan from Bank, which the petitioner had not paid. Thus, the petitioner not only committed the offence of cheating but committed the breach of trust also, hence, his bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the petitioner is found to have committed the offence of cheating, do not deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Rahul Jain @ Rahul Sen @ Govind S/o. Ganga Ram @ Ram Dayal under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 10