Madhya Pradesh High Court
Yogesh Giri vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
1 M.Cr.C. No.50545/2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.50545/2021
(Yogesh Giri Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 18/11/2021
Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for applicant.
Shri Shashwat Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State
of Madhya Pradesh.
Shri Madhusudan Yadav, learned counsel for the objector. They are heard. Perused the documents / challan papers. This is applicant's first application under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.506/2021 registered at Police Station Sanawad, District Khargone (MP) for offence punishable under Section 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Allegations against the present applicant Yogesh Giri and the co- accused Mahendra Giri and Pankaj Wadhwani are that on 05/09/2021 an FIR has been lodged by the complainant Surendra Singh Panwar alleging that he knows the applicant Yogesh S/o Suraj Giri and Mahendra S/o Hari Giri, both R/o Sanawad since last around 15 years as in the year 2004, he had worked with the present applicant and the other co-accused in Sai Prasad Group of Companies as an agent but after closer of Sai Prasad Group of Companies in the year 2015, the applicant and the other accused lured the applicant to invest in Sai Swaroop Infra India Ltd. Company on the pretext that the amount invested in Sai Prasad Group of Companies 2 M.Cr.C. No.50545/2021 would be secured if he invests in Sai Swaroop Infra India Ltd. Company and the investors of earlier company would also not trouble him any more. The complainant was assured of handsome return on the investment made in the said company. Subsequently the aforesaid accused persons also asked the complainant to invest in Green Life Soil Fertility Anchor Pvt. Ltd. which was also manufacturing organic fertilizer and thus being enticed by the handsome return, the applicant collected huge amount from the other investors also and invested in the companies as directed by the applicant and the other accused persons and the case of the complainant is that in this investment, although he has received 42,90,000/- till 28/04/2021, however, Rs. 19,00,000/- still remains to be returned but the aforesaid amount has been misappropriated by the applicant and the other co-accused persons which led to filing of the aforesaid FIR.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a service provider only and has not misappropriated any amount which is also apparent from the FIR itself as around more than 42,00,000/- rupees have been returned to the complainant. Counsel has submitted that it is not a case of misappropriation of the amount but infact is a case of lose and business and the complainant was also aware of the risk of investing in share market and in the fluctuating returns therefrom. Counsel has also submitted that in an another FIR at crime No.51/2021, the other accused Mahendra Goswami has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.31907/2021 vide order dated 29/06/2021. Counsel has submitted that 3 M.Cr.C. No.50545/2021 the case of the present applicant is identical to that of Mahendra Goswami and thus he be also released on anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the applicant was the agent of other co-accused Pankaj Khanchandani who was managing the entire business and from whom only the investment was made, thus the applicant cannot be held responsible for the acts of Pankaj Khanchandai who has already filed an insolvency case in the Court of District Judge, Indore under Section 13(1) of the provisions of Insolvency Act. Thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and he be released on anticipatory bail.
Counsel for the objector on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that huge amount has been misappropriated by the applicant and the other co-accused persons and as such their custodial interrogation would be necessary as other criminal cases of identical nature have also been registered against them.
Counsel for the respondent / State has opposed the prayer. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as also the record.
From the record of the bail application as also the case diary, it is apparent that the FIR has been lodged in the year 2021 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant is an acquaintance of the applicant and the other accused persons since 2004 and has also worked with them. It is also apparent that he has invested through the applicants since 2015 and as per the FIR, a sum of Rs.42,90,000/- have already been returned to the 4 M.Cr.C. No.50545/2021 complainant till 28/04/2021 however, Rs.19,00,000/- still remains to be paid. Giving anxious consideration to the aforesaid chronology and the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary as prima-facie case appears to be of investment having gone bad.
Accordingly, this application is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant shall be released on bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) and furnishing solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).
The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required. They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub Section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case is allowed. Certified copy as per rules.
(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge krjoshi Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2021.11.23 10:44:50 +05'30'