Sameer Mathur & Ors.

vs State 1

IN THE COURT OF SH. KULBHUSHAN KUMAR,

(UID No.PB0170) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
PATHANKOT.

PBPO010034812022

CIS No.BA/1130/2022.
CNR No. PBPO010034812022.
Date of order: 09.12.2022.

1. Sameer Mathur aged 25 years son of Ram Raj, resident of Near

State Bank of India, Kathua (J&K)
2. Rahul Kumar Sharme aged 30 years son of Vijay Kumar Sharma,
resident of Ward No.5,Near Railway Fatak, Palli, Kathua (J&K)
3. Vinod son of Thuru Ram, resident of Near Radha Krishan Mandir,
Budhi, Kathua (J&K).

.....Accused/Applicanta.

Versus

State of Punjab.

FIR No. 212 dated 22.11.2022.

Under Section 420, 406, 120-B IPC
Police Station Division no.2, Pathankot.

Application under section 438 Cr.P.C.

…...…
Present: Sh.Suraj Singh Advocate counsel for accused/applicants.
Sh. Vivek Puri, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

ORDER:

1. This order of mine shall dispose of application filed U/s 438

Cr.P.C. by applicants/accused Sameer Mathur son of Ram Raj, Rahul
Kumar Sharma son of Vijay Kumar Sharma and Vinod son of Thuru Ram
for seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.212 dated 22.11.2022, under
sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, PS Division no.2, Pathankot.
2. Notice of the bail application was issued to the State. The

Kulbhushan Kumar,
Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot.
(UID No.PB-0170), Dt.09.12.2022.
Sameer Mathur & Ors. vs State 2

Ld. Addl. PP for the State has not filed written reply. Record has been
requisitioned and perused.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present FIR
has been registered on the written complaint moved by complainant
Happy son of Ashok Kumar to SHO PS Division no.2, Pathankot with the
allegations that he was resident of village Rajpura, Pathankot. He was
working as Technical Supervisor in DPM Agrovet, House no.117, Model
Town, near Singh Sabha Gurudwara Sahib, Pathankot. Their firm used to
obtain Poultry Farms where they keep chickens at their own cost. The
owner take care of Poultry Farm at his own. After 35 days, they sell their
products and they used to pay Rs.7-8 per Chickens to the owner. Before
obtaining the Poultry Farm, their firm used to enter into an agreement. In
this way an agreement was executed with their firm by Sameer Mathur
son of Ram Raj, resident of near State Bank of India, Budhi, Kathua
(J&K) and on 09.06.2022 their firm delivered 4024 Chicks and the same
were to be sold by them after 35 days and Rs.7-8 per Kilogram was to be
paid to Sameer Mathur. On 15.07.2022 when they reached at the Poultry
Farm of Sameer Mathur, then they saw that there was no any material
available in the Poultry Famrs. After inquiry, they came to know that
Sameer Mathur sold the material one day prior to some body else.
Thereafter, they went to the house of Sameer Mathur, but he did not meet
them, neither he is receiving their phone calls. Sameer Mathur committed
fraud with them to the tune of Rs.8,04,800/-. On the basis of aforesaid
complaint, the present FIR was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants/accused has argued that
the applicants/accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in
the present case. The police of PS Division no.2, have falsely implicated
the applicants/accused. The police authorities of PS Division no.2,
Pathankot are conducting the raids at the residential hoses of the
applicants/accused and they are apprehending their arrest. The allegations
mentioned in the FIR against the applicants/accused are totally false.
There is no proof of allegations against the applicants/accused made by

Kulbhushan Kumar,
Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot.
(UID No.PB-0170), Dt.09.12.2022.
Sameer Mathur & Ors. vs State 3

the complainant in the present FIR. The complainant has leveled false
allegations against the applicants/accused. As per the allegations in the
alleged FIR, no case is made out against the applicants/accused. The
applicants/accused are ready to join the investigation. He also argued that
the allegations are of civil in nature. So, the applicants/accused have been
falsely implicated in the present criminal case. He further argued that the
applicants/accused undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions
which the Court may impose. Hence, he prayed to allow the application.
5. On the other hand, learned Addl. P.P for State opposed the
contention raised by the applicants/accused. He further argued that the
applicants/accused are doing the job of poultry farms and they have
dishonestly induced to deliver the poultry produce for a valuable security
to the DPM Agrovet on the basis of agreement executed between them.
As the applicants/accused have committed serious crime against the
complainant, so they are not entitled to the bail. Hence, he prayed for
dismissal of the bail application.
6. After hearing rival arguments addressed by the counsel for
the applicant/accused and learned Addl. P.P for State and further going
through the record available on file, this court is of the view that the
present FIR has been registered on the complaint moved by complainant
Happy against the applicants/accused with the allegations that they have
deceived the complainant for an amount of Rs.8,04,800/- and further
alleged that the applicants/accused executed an agreement to deliver the
chicks after completion of 35 days from the date when the complainant
supplied them the material of poultry farms. Whereas, later on the
applicants/accused sold the material to some body else due to which the
complainant has to suffer the loss. Both the parties have not denied the
execution of the agreement between them. As such, the allegations against
the applicants/accused are of serious in nature as the applicants/accused
dishonestly induced to deliver the poultry produce for the valuable
security of Rs.8,04,800/-. The applicants/accused have committed a
serious crime against the complainant. So, the applicants/accused are not

Kulbhushan Kumar,
Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot.
(UID No.PB-0170), Dt.09.12.2022.
Sameer Mathur & Ors. vs State 4

entitled to the bail as prayed for. Hence, the present bail application
deserves no merit and stands dismissed accordingly.
However, the observations of mine shall not effect on the
merit of the case. Record be returned. Bail application file complete in all
respect be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in the Open Court. (Kulbhushan Kumar)

Dated: 09.12.2022 (UID No.PB0170),
Additional Sessions Judge
Pathankot.
* Typed by Sawtanter Kumar Stenographer-II on direct dictation on computer.

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document.
Digitally signed by SAWTANTER
KUMAR
Date: 2022.11.18 02:03:51 +0530

Kulbhushan Kumar,
Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot.
(UID No.PB-0170), Dt.09.12.2022.