Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tabrez Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 December, 2018
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.49626/2018
10.12.2018 (INDORE):
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Piyush Shrivastava, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Shri Mukesh Sethiya, learned counsel for the objector/complainant.
Heard.
This is first bail application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C seeking bail in connection with crime No.994/18 registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, Indore for the offences punishable under sections 420 & 406 of the IPC.
As per the FIR, complainant had alleged that the applicant, Zoid Research, lured him into investing in the share market and took money from him from time to time running into Rs.12 lacs with the assurance that the amount would be invested in such manner that the complainant will get twice the invested amount in short time. The complainant fell into the trap and gave money for investment purposes to the applicant number of times from 28.08.2017 to 25.03.2018. However, the applicant did not return the money so invested when demanded and the complainant was threatened instead. As per the applicant, his firm Zoid -2- Research, is a proprietorship firm which is registered under the Shops & Establishment Act, 1958 and this firm has obtained certificate of registration from SEBI as well and is registered as investment adviser only providing advisory services to the clients and merely charging advisory fee from the clients under different packages. The firm is not involved in any kind of brokerage services or portfolio management services and has not invested any sum of money on behalf of the clients. The complainant on his free will registered himself with the company and gained huge amount as profit on the advice rendered by the applicant to the extent that he upgraded his registration to premium services to earn more profit. Learned counsel for the applicant has brought to the attention of this Court various e-mails sent by the complainant to the applicant showing his full satisfaction with the services rendered by the applicant. He has also pointed out the documents showing profit earned by the complainant which is at page No.40 in the list of documents filed by the applicant. The copy of the e-mails showing full satisfaction by the complainant is filed at page No.80 in the list of documents. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with all knowledge of market risk the complainant has taken advisory services from the company and due to false and fabricated complaint, the reputation of the applicant and his firm has been spoiled. The present case, as per the -3- applicant, is purely of civil nature. The complainant ought to have approached SEBI for raising his grievances. The applicant has to suffer because of his arrest by the Police while he was only rendering his professional services. It is, therefore, prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
Number of documents have been filed by the applicant which includes Gumasta license, trade license, certificate issued by the SEBI, copy of different packages provided to the complainant, copy of the track record of the complainant, SEBI regulations, agreement executed between the complainant and the applicant firm, communication through e-mail, payment receipts and GST returns etc. However, an affidavit has also been filed by the complainant Sheetal Mahilang showing that a compromise has been arrived at between the applicant and the complainant. The complainant in his affidavit states that he has resolved his dispute with the applicant and arrived at a compromise on his own free will. Earlier the same complainant had filed a written objection to the bail application.
The complainant has appeared before this Court during the hearing of the bail application and reiterates the factum of compromise.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the applicant/firm has duped other complainants -4- also and they have also lodged their complaints. These are Ashok Kumar Gupta and Harshkumar Gangwal and the matter is under investigation. Looking to the manner in which the applicant firm has duped number of persons, the bail application be rejected.
Considered rival contentions.
Considering the factum of compromise as also the documents filed by the applicant, without commenting on the merits, I deem it proper to allow the application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his regular appearance before the trial court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
C.c as per rules.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2018.12.11 09:08:51 -08'00' hk/