CRLMB 510/08 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.510/2008 Sandeep Soral Vs. State of Rajasthan Date Of Order :: 8th April, 2009 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma, for petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Meena, Public Prosecutor for State. Mr. Surendra Sharma, for complainant. ........ This third anticipatory bail application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the accused petitioner Sandeep Soral in relation to FIR No.22/2004 registered at Police Station Nayapura, Kota for the offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the material available on the case diary. 3. It was inter alia contended by the counsel appearing for the accused petitioner that the police after thorough investigation and taking into consideration the material produced by the complainant and available in the case diary did not find any CRLMB 510/08 (2) criminal act of the accused petitioner and had filed negative final report. It was then submitted that final negative report was not accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and he directed to the police to conduct further investigation into the matter but no further evidence was collected and the police is bent upon to arrest the accused petitioner for the offence under section 420 IPC whereas the complainant Vimal Kumar has already filed a criminal complaint against the co-accused Kamal Sharma who delivered two cheques to the complainant, therefore, on the same set of facts the criminal case of cheating is not sustainable. Reliance was placed on the judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2000) 2 Supreme Court Cases 636. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application and contended that with the design and in conspiracy with the co- accused Kamal Sharma the complainant has been cheated by the accused petitioner Sandeep Soral and this fact is established from the material available on the record including from the statement of Ramswaroop, Advocate before whom the original agreement was taken back by the accused petitioner by employing the deceitful means. It was then submitted that three times the petitions filed by the accused petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report as well as for CRLMB 510/08 (3) stopping the investigation in this matter has been dismissed by this Court and the co-accused has already been arrested in this matter. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to express my views on merit since the same may affect the case of either party, but for the purpose of deciding this application suffice is to say that police after final investigation came to the conclusion that offence under section 420 IPC has been committed by the accused petitioner. The petitions filed by the accused petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the First Information Report as well as for stopping the investigation have also been dismissed by this Court. It is also not disputed that the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been filed against the accused petitioner but pending against the co-accused Kamal Sharma and the alleged act of cheating by the accused petitioner is antecedent to the issuance of the cheque by the co-accused to the complainant. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant this third anticipatory bail application. 6. This third anticipatory bail application is rejected accordingly. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D14