Karun Kaura vs State Of Uttarakhand And Two Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

This Application has been filed by the applicant-Karun Kaura for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.82 of 2022 (Criminal Case No.1289 of 2023), registered at Police Station Mukhani, District Nainital.

According to the First Information Report dated 02.04.2022, the applicant is the Chief Managing Director of M/s. Kaya Blenders and Distillers Ltd. The informant was informed that he had been engaged as a distributor in the State of Uttarakhand to distribute liquor products. He deposited Rs.1.25 Lakh in the Company’s bank account for registration. He further deposited Rs.30.00 Lakh in the Company’s bank account through cheques, but he was sent a forged Agreement dated 07.10.2020.

Heard Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G.S. Sandhu, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent nos.1 & 2.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate contended that the applicant is an authorized signatory of the said company. The applicant’s company and the informant entered into Uttarakhand Sale Partnership Agreement cum Memorandum of Understanding on 05.08.2020. An additional agreement was also executed between them on 28.09.2020. The terms and conditions of the Agreement/Understanding were mentioned therein. As per Clause 2 of the Agreement cum MOU, the informant was supposed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.20.00 Lakh within two-three months from the date of signing the Agreement dated 05.08.2020, but he failed to make such payment. The applicant’s company invoked Arbitration Clause 26 of the Agreement cum MOU and has filed an arbitration case before the court of District Judge, Patiala (Punjab) under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate, further submitted that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Patiala, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He is not a convicted person. He was not arrested during the course of the investigation. Charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, therefore, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence.

Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Additional Advocate General has opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application orally.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present Application, filed for anticipatory bail, is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant-Karun Kaura, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Applicant shall attend the trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

(ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of this case;

(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the trial court.

It is made clear that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the prosecution agency will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.