Arjun Deshpande S/O Shri Rajesh Deshpande vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioners, Arjun Deshpande and Rajesh Deshpande, sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 688/2022 registered at Police Station N.E.B. Alwar for an alleged offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and highlighted an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 06.02.2021, stipulating that all disputes would be settled through arbitration. They also stated that the alleged offense 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 prosecution opposed the bail application, alleging misuse of the complainant's GST Number and drug license by the petitioners.

Held

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners, Arjun Deshpande and Rajesh Deshpande. The decision was based on a totality of facts and circumstances, particularly noting that the alleged offense was based on documents in the possession of the investigating agency. Crucially, the Court considered the presence of an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties, which provided for the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Furthermore, the Court took into account 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 the offense under Section 420 IPC, considering the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and the fact that the petitioners have joined the investigation. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that they have been falsely implicated and that the dispute is essentially civil in nature, governed by an arbitration clause in their agreement. They contended that the alleged offense is based on documents already with the investigating agency and that their custodial interrogation is not necessary, especially since they have complied with previous court directions to join the investigation. Respondent's Arguments: The State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail application, alleging that the petitioners had misused the complainant's GST Number and drug license. No specific statutory provisions or precedents were cited by the respondent in the judgment.