SB Crlmb No.6089/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6089/2010. C.K. Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : July 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri K.N. Bhatt with Shri Dharmendra Pareek for petitioner. Shri Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for State. Shri Suresh Sahni for the complainant. Shri Suresh Pareek, complainant present in person. Shri Lakhan Singh, SHO (IO) PS Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur present in person. ****** Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that Petitioner himself was a victim at the hands of co-accused Shri Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma because petitioner and his brother Jegendra Singh Rathore themselves were cheated by them of an amount of Rs.15 lacs for admission of their two children through Shri Sushil Vishnoi for which, they filed FIR against Shashi Shekhar Sharma, Sumit Sharma and Shri Sushil Vishnoi being FIR SB Crlmb No.6089/10. 2 No.159/2009 at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Ghatkoper (West) Mumbai on 29/4/2009. Learned counsel for petitioner citing the order of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 11/6/2010 passed in SB Cr.Misc.Bail Appl.Nos.5455/2010, 5456/2010, 5457/2010 & 5458/2010 has argued that in these cases, co-accused Jegendra Singh Rathore, who is brother of the present petitioner was granted bail whose case is identical to that of the case of the present accused Petitioner. It is further contended that at the persuasion of the accused petitioner and brother, 2-3 other persons, who were also cheated in the like manner, have filed first information reports against Shri Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma much before the complaint was filed in the present case. Petitioner has already refunded an amount of Rs.2.5 lacs to the complainant and for remaining amount, it has been admitted by the complainant that the cheques received from co-accused Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma were dishonored. Two demand drafts of Rs.2.85 lacs and 35,000/-, respectively were received back by the complainant from those two co-accused which were encashed. The dispute now remains for Rs.9.50 lacs which has thus to be paid by co-accused Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma, who have cheated the accused petitioner as well. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the SB Crlmb No.6089/10. 3 bail application. The Investigating Officer is also present in court and submits that as per the evidence so far collected during investigation, in fact a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs was retained by the present Petitioner for himself out of Rs.9 lacs paid by the complainant, which amount has been refunded by the petitioner to him. Accused-petitioner passed on the remaining amount to co-accused Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma for whose arrested, police is making all out efforts. Complainant, Suresh Pareek, who is present in court also submits that family of the accused Petitioner has assured him that they would make all the efforts with the complainant to chase those two accused i.e. Shri Shashi Shekhar Sharma and Sumit Sharma for recovery of the remaining amount. Keeping in view the fact that co-accused Jegendra Singh Rathore against whom similar allegations were there and similar arguments were advanced from both the sides, co-ordinate Bench of this Court was persuaded to enlarge him on bail pending trial by a detailed order dated 11/6/2010, I see no justification in taking a different view especially when the complainant himself has appeared to contend so. I therefore deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that SB Crlmb No.6089/10. 4 petitioner – C.K. Singh S/o Shri Devi Singh Rathore shall be released on bail in FIR No.205/2009 P.S. Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur City, South for offence u/Ss.420, 468 and 120-B IPC on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil