Allahabad High Court
Vinay Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti ... on 10 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1997
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 11 Case :- BAIL No. - 826 of 2020 Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Jain Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation, Anti Corruptipn Branch,Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction/amendment in the memo of the bail application during the course of the day.
Heard Mr. Anand Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/Assistant Solicitor General assisted by Mr. Qazi Ibrahim, Advocate appearing for C.B.I. and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.RC0062008S0017, under Section 120/420 I.P.C., Police Station C.B.I., District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and in jail since 18.01.2020. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant was the Director of M/s Shristi Carriers Private Ltd. and the aforesaid company was carrying on the business of transportation of Vehicles/Products of company, such as, Bajaj, LML, Hero Honda etc. He further submitted that the company had taken loan partly for investing in its business and partly with the object of investing in the shares of potential companies for raising money so that the same could be utilized as a working capital for promoting the company. He further submitted that some unsecured loans were taken from the friends and business associates for the purpose of business of the Company, which is evident from the balance sheet of the company and due to heavy competition in the market and new laws with respect to running of motor vehicles, huge losses were made in the year 1996-1997, which resulted in discontinuation of the company.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Company Petition No.46 of 1996 was filed with the prayer that on 05.01.2000, winding up order was passed by Allahabad High Court and Official Liquidator was appointed to represent the company and take its possession in accordance with law, but he failed to do so, as a result, on 10.02.2000, Ex-parte order was passed for the Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and no opportunity was provided to Official Liquidator. He further submitted that the very facts were apprised to the Company Court by the Official Liquidator, as a result, an order was passed for lodging the F.I.R. with the observation that bogus entry were shown in the balance sheet, then the F.I.R. No.RC0062008S0017 dated 16.10.2008, under Sections 5(A), 545(5), 454(3) & 451/468 of Companies Act, 1956 and Section 120B r/w 420 I.P.C., P.S. C.B.I./A.C.B./Lucknow, District Lucknow was lodged. He further submitted that on the direction of company court, appeal was filed by the official liquidator against the assessment order dated 10.02.2000, which was allowed on 10.11.2014 and it has attained finality.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that Official Liquidator also conducted the fresh inquiry and filed affidavit before the Company Court with the statement that no bogus entries were made in the balance sheet. He further submitted that the C.B.I. filed charge sheet dated 30.09.2009 (appended as annexure No.3 to the bail application) on the basis of observation made in the Assessment Order dated 10.02.2000 that the Directors of the Company made bogus entries in the balance sheet, with the finding that the offence under Sections 120B r/w 420 I.P.C. is made out for mentioning bogus entries, and rest of the offences related to the Companies Act, 1956 were deleted.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the authorities failed to consider the order of the Appellate Authority objected assessment order was set aside and also the affidavit filed by Official Liquidator before the Company Court, no offence is made out as there is no evidence that discloses the offence under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. He further submitted that he co-operated in investigation and there is no possibility for tempering of any evidence as the charge sheet has been filed by C.B.I. and the applicant is ready to face the trial. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.S.G. vehemently opposes the bail application and submitted that the applicant made false entries in the balance sheet submitted to the Income Tax Department, at the time of filing return for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and it came into the knowledge in scrutiny, as a result, notice was issued, thereafter, fresh Assessment Order was passed on 10.02.2000 and further submitted that even in the charge sheet, the offence related to the Companies Act, 1956 was deleted but charge sheet under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. has been filed as there is a criminal intent by the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled to get bail, but he conceded the fact that Assessment Order dated 10.02.2000 was set aside by the Appellate Authority.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Let applicant Vinay Kumar Jain be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime on his furnishing personal bond of amounting Rs.5,00,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.
(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
The learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any parties.
Order Date :- 10.6.2020 S. Shivhare