Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Goel vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on : 12.2.2021 Delivered on : 04.3.2021 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19942 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subir Lal,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17262 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Subir Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17455 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Subir Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17468 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Subir Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17640 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18370 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Since all the aforementioned six bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel, which arise out of a similar nature of cases, same have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
For the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19942 of 2020 has been taken as a leading case.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19942 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.387 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17262 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.586 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17455 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.411 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17468 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.432 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17640 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.509 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.18370 of 2020 has been moved on behalf of the accused-applicant Sanjay Goel involved in case crime no.385 of 2019 under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC pertaining to Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Exemption applications filed in all the aforesaid six bail applications are allowed.
Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State on the present bail application as well as on the connected applications.
In short, prosecution version is that the Directors of the company running in the name and style of M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited having its registered office at Gautam Budh Nagar launched a Scheme to invest in it on the inducement of good / assured return to the investors in this ponzy 'Bike Boat Scheme.' Due to the lucrative offer made in the Scheme, large number of people invested a huge amount in it. The accused initially paid the assured amount to the investors to win their trust, but later on defaulted on payments and absconded. They did not return the amount of a large number of investors who invested their hard-earned money in this Scheme. A number of persons had filed police complaints / F.I.R.s against them.
Allegation is that the informant, who is one of the investors, has suffered a huge financial loss in the aforesaid Scheme of the alleged Company whose directors have been implicated as accused persons in the F.I.R. Informant claims to have defrauded by investing his hard-earned money in the forged Scheme.
It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has no concern with the present matter. He was simply an investor in the Bike Boat Scheme launched by the company concerned. He was the director only for a period of 23 days. As soon as he came to the knowledge that investors are not being paid the due profit by the company, he resigned immediately from the post. It was further submitted that recovery is false and planted and cannot be read against the applicant because same was not recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. It was next contended that applicant has no share at all in the company concerned. No vicarious liability can be fastened against the applicant. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the F.I.R.s lodged against the applicant and further argued that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration, then also main accused are the persons who are share holders in the company concerned. Applicant is languishing in jail since last one year two months. He was not named in the F.I.R. He never signed any agreement entered into between the investors and the company. Amount credited in the account of the applicant has been returned as profit in the Bike Boat Scheme in lieu of investment made by the applicant. No F.I.R. was lodged on part of the investors against the applicant. Accused in the identical F.I.R.s have been enlarged on bail lodged by some of the investors. At this stage, learned counsel referred to the bail orders passed by this Court in respect of the applicant relating to similar offence in case crime no.206 of 2019, 354 of 2019, 378 of 2019, 353 of 2019, 369 of 2019 and 362 of 2019. Copies of the bail orders have been appended with the bail application. It was next argued that applicant was implicated in this matter only being an Additional Director of the Company, but it was not clear that how the applicant was involved in diverting the amount invested in the concerned Company to the Sister concern company. Applicant is languishing in jail since 6.8.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. At this juncture, learned counsel also referred to the entire documents and the grounds taken in the bail applications and prayer was made to enlarge the applicant on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2012) 4 Supreme Court Cases 134.
On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the concerned company offered investment flouting the guidelines laid down by the R.B.I. and Companies Act. Applicant was Additional Director in the concerned Company for a period of 23 days and during that period, more than Rs.103 Crores were diverted to the Sister concern, which was the amount invested by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme. At this stage, Sri Goyal also referred to the statement of the witnesses as well as accused recorded during investigation and further argued that a huge amount was credited in the account of the applicant by the company concerned. This fact itself shows the active participation of the applicant in the present crime. More than 2.5 lacs investors have invested the money in Bike Boat Scheme and they are waiting for their return. Applicant was also one of the motivators. The entire scheme launched by the Company was based against the provision of law. In this matter, a large amount of more than Rs.3000 crores is involved. Enforcement Directorate has also initiated proceedings in this matter. A clear motive regarding the involvement of the applicant has come in the investigation. Since applicant was Additional Director of the Company and during that period, a huge amount was diverted to the Sister concern, therefore, applicant cannot be escaped from its criminal liability. A large number of motorcycles were recovered on the basis of statement of the applicant, which also shows the active participation of the applicant in commission of the present offence. Recovery of motorcycles said to have been made in the matter, shall be read as evidence against the applicant. It was further argued that it is a case of economic offence and a huge amount invested by the investors in the Scheme have been embezzled. Interest of the public at large is involved in this matter, therefore, applicant cannot be allowed on bail. The bail granted to the applicant in other matters / F.I.R.s cannot be a ground to enlarged him on bail in this matter. The same were not passed on the basis of counter / rejoinder affidavits. Even amount diverted by the Company concerned to the Sister concern during the period when applicant was Additional Director in the Company, have also not been taken into consideration. Thus, parity cannot be claimed in this matter. Applicant was also one of the top earners in this case. He resigned from the post of Additional Director only to setup the case. It was next contended that valuable / relevant documents regarding the investment in the Bike Boat Scheme have been burnt. Money said to be invested by the applicant do not match with the amount credited in the account of the applicant from the Company concerned and its sister concern. It was further argued that most of the transactions are cash transactions. All the ingredients of the offence levelled against the applicant are clearly attracted, as intention of the applicant is apparent because being a Director, without following the guidelines laid down by the R.B.I. as well as Companies Act, offer for investment was made in the Company. A complete chain of embezzlement is clearly established. It was further submitted that a large number of F.I.R.s have been lodged against the applicant. If the applicant is released on bail, there is chance of tampering with the evidence. Lastly, in support of his case, Sri Goyal placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Masroor Vesus State of U.P. and Another, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 286.
2. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Versus Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496.
3. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439.
4. Gautam Kundu Versus Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1
5. State of Bihar and Another Versus Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751.
6. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Nittin Johari and Another, (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 165.
7. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528.
8. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 389.
9. Judgment dated 5.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8606 of 2020 (Deepti Bahal Versus State of U.P.).
I have considered the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the record reveals that applicant was Additional Director of M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited for certain period. Thereafter, he resigned from the post of Director. Allegation against the applicant is that he actively motivated the investors to invest their money in Bike Boat Scheme. As per prosecution case, during the period when the applicant was Additional Director of the concerned Company, more than Rupees 100 crores of the investors were diverted to other Companies. Number of investors are still waiting for their return of assured money. It is also evident that applicant was allowed on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.2766 of 2020 on the basis that the first informant / complainant in the aforesaid matter had received back the entire amount from the main accused. Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.13163 of 2020, 14276 of 2020, 13167 of 2020, 13423 of 2020 and 13337 of 2020 were allowed on the basis of order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.2766 of 2020. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the amount invested by the investors in the Bike Boat Scheme, applicant was also one of the motivators in the Bike Boat Scheme and also this fact that a huge amount of the investors has been diverted to other Companies during the period when the applicant was Additional Director of the concerned Company as well as the fact that numerous F.I.R.s have been lodged against the applicant by the investors and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, Court is of the view that the applicant cannot be allowed on bail in the aforesaid crime numbers / F.I.R.s simply on the basis of order passed in the bail applications referred here-in-above.
All the present bail applications of accused-applicant Sanjay Goel in aforesaid crime numbers are hereby rejected.
Order date :- 04.03.2021.
ss