H. R. MALHOTRA, J.

(1) THIS order shall dispose of bail application No. 215/2008 of roop Kaur Sarawat and bail application No. 250/2008 of Sanjeev Kumar. The petitioners in both the bail applications seek anticipatory bail in the case registered against them under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in FIR No. 358/2007. So far as the case of Roop Kaur Sarawat is concerned, according to the prosecution case, the petitioner Roop Kaur Sarawat owned a gas agency under the name of M/s roop Gas Agency which she had already sold to one Shri Dhalu Ram Pahuja for a consideration of Rs. 73,00,000/- and has executed various documents in his favour. Since Dhalu Ram Pahuja was not interested in retaining this agency, he asked for the refund of his money already received by her and as such the petitioner asked the complainant, Vinod Kumar Singh to buy the said gas agency as she desired to sell the same for a consideration of Rs. 79,50,000/ -. The petitioner also showed various documents indicating that Dhalu Ram Pahuja was not interested in retaining that agency. She allured the complainant to buy the gas agency for a consideration referred to above. Finally, it was settled that the complainant shall make payment of Rs. 79,50,000/- to the petitioner and out of that amount a sum of Rs. 73,00,000/- shall be returned to Dhalu Ram pahuja by the petitioner and the remaining amount shall be kept by her.

(2) ACCORDINGLY, the complainant Vinod Kumar Singh arranged for a sum of Rs. 67,70,000/- from different sources and paid the said amount to Roop kaur Sarawat , on various dates and also executed Indemnity bond in favour of the petitioner on Ist March, 2006 and finally paid a sum of Rs. 11,80,000/-in the month of June, 2006. Though the petitioner had been assuring the complainant that she would execute proper documents of the gas agency in his favour or in favour of his nominee and shall also obtain permission from the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. to induct the complainant as financial partner in the said gas agency but changed her attitude despite the fact that Dhalu Ram pahuja had executed an affidavit in favour of the complainant relinquishing his rights in M/s Roop Gas Agency in favour of the complainant yet the petitioner kept on avoiding despite having received the amount from the complainant and thus cheated the complainant in the said manner which necessitated the complainant to lodge one report with the DCP (East) on 3rd march, 2006. Despite having received this sum on the pretext that she would transfer the gas agency in his name but neither the amount received by her was ever returned nor transferred the gas agency in favour of the complainant.

(3) IT is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the petitioner and the complainant is of civil nature and no criminality is attached whereas learned prosecutor while reading the FIR urged that the petitioner usurped huge amount of the complainant by alluring the complainant to part with this sum and under the belief of such misrepresentation and inducement, the complainant paid the amount referred to above and thus by this act the petitioner cheated the complainant which constitutes an offence under Section 420 IPC.

(4) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Prosecutor besides having heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also having perused the allegations made in the FIR , I am of the view that the petitioner had no legal authority to transfer the gas agency in the manner as it was being done by her and that the complainant came under her allurement despite the fact that the petitioner had already received a sum of Rs. 73,00,000/- from one Mr. Dhalu Ram Pahuja. Prima facie it is a case where custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary as it does not appear to be a simple case of civil nature. The anticipatory bail of the petitioner, Roop Kaur Sarawat is ,therefore, dismissed.

(5) SO far as the anticipatory bail application of Sanjeev Kumar is concerned, he is entitled to anticipatory bail as no transaction of any nature was ever entered into between the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, in bail application No. 250/2008 had been working with the prime accused as a Manager only to look after the business of the agency from Ist September, 2006 vide appointment letter dated 30th August, 2006. Since the name of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar does not figure anywhere in the FIR, therefore, prima facie he cannot be held responsible for the transactions entered into between the prime accused Roop Kaur Sarawat and Vinod kumar Singh, therefore, the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar is admitted to anticipatory bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. The applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.