@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Mohammad Rafiq, J.@mdashSmt. Manju Sharma, representative of petitioner has argued that petitioner is married and is house-wife and she is her sister-in-law (bhabhi). Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as, she resigned from the Director of the Company long ago on 5/10/2008 whereas, the complaint in the present case was filed in the court two years thereafter on 13/5/2010 and when it was sent to the police station for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C., it was registered as first information report on 19/6/2010. She has produced for perusal of the court the letter of resignation addressed by the petitioner to the Board of Directors on 5/10/2010 and copy of Form No. 32. It is also argued that complainant paid three installments of Rs. 6,000/- each and three Demand Drafts of Rs. 6,000/- each were handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor in the court on 25/8/2010. This Court on 25/8/2010 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the said facts. She submits that petitioner has been falsely involved in the present criminal case. If there was fault on the part of principal accused Rahul Sharma and Satyendra Sharma and only they could be prosecuted for the said offence. Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, father of representative of petitioner was also sought to be arrested in the like manner. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court was however persuaded to grant him benefit of pre-arrest bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 8/9/2010 passed in SB Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 8351/2010.
2. Representative of the Public Prosecutor office, who is present in court submits that the case diary was returned for that purpose but so far no report has been received contradicting the abovesaid facts.
3. Considering the aforesaid arguments of the representative of petitioner and all other facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that petitioner resigned from the Director of the Company long ago on 5/10/2008 whereas, the complaint in the present case was filed in the court two years thereafter on 13/5/2010, I am inclined to extend to the petitioner benefit of pre-arrest bail.
4. In the result, this anticipatory bail application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Smt. Pratiksha Sharma W/o Shri Rahul Sharma, she be released on bail by the S.H.O./I.O. in FIR No. 81/2010 registered at Police Station Lal Kothi, Jaipur, District Jaipur for offence Under Sections 109, 420, 406 and 120B IPC on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to his satisfaction with the following conditions:
1. that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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
3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
