Rajesh Deshpande S/O Shri Nand Kumar Deshpande vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioners, Arjun Deshpande and Rajesh Deshpande, sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 688/2022 registered at Police Station N.E.B. Alwar for an alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, that an agreement between the parties contained an arbitration clause for dispute resolution, that the alleged offence was based on documents in the possession of the investigating agency, and that they had joined the investigation as per a previous court order. The respondent State opposed the bail application, arguing that the petitioners had misused the complainant's GST number and drug license.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications. The Court considered the contentions of the petitioners, particularly the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement which provides a mechanism for dispute resolution, and the fact that the alleged offence is based on documents in the possession of the investigating agency. The Court also noted that the petitioners had joined the investigation. While not expressing an opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, the Court found it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties, subject to conditions including availability for interrogation, not inducing witnesses, and not leaving India without prior court permission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 688/2022 for offences under Section 420 IPC, considering the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement and the fact that the alleged offence is document-based? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they were falsely implicated. They highlighted the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 06.02.2021, which mandates that all disputes be settled through arbitration. They further contended that the alleged offence is based on documents already with the investigating agency and that they have cooperated by joining the investigation, rendering custodial interrogation unnecessary. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant, opposed the bail application. Their primary contention was that the petitioners had misused the complainant's GST number and drug license.