Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anand Subramanium vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 March, 2019
-1-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
MCRC NO.2755/2019
Anand s/o Doraiswamy Subramanium vs. State of M.P
28.03.2019 (INDORE):
Shri V.K.Gangwal, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Yogesh Gupta, learned GA for the
respondent/State.
Shri Milind Phadke, learned counsel for the complainant.
Heard.
Residual submissions were made on application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C which is the first bail application in respect of crime no.393/2016 registered in police station Aerodrum, district Indore for allegedly having committed offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B and 471 of the IPC.
As per prosecution story M.P Flying Club ordered an aircraft engine called Lycoming engine with specifications of IO-360-L2A from Premier Aviation F.Z.E, Sharjah, UAE of which the applicant is the Director. The complainant M.P Flying Club through its authorized officer paid 34900 US dollars to the applicant on 26.11.2013. However, the applicant tried to send engine of specification other than the -2- one desired by the Flying Club and was asked by the complainant to return the money paid to the applicant. However, the applicant shut down his office at Sharjah and was later on arrested on landing at Mumbai airport due to look out notice issued against him.
The grounds mentioned in the application for bail are that charge sheet has been filed, applicant is in jail since last five months, remedy in respect of breach of conditions of agreement lied in instituting a civil suit and not an FIR, that even the allegations are taken at its face value, no offence is made out as described in the charge sheet, that complainant is influential and has easy reach at the highest echelons of Police hierarchy and he directly approached DIG and under whose pressure the FIR has been recorded.
Learned counsel for the State and the objector have vehemently protested the bail application stating that M.P Flying Club is a government funded organization, that applicant had criminal antecedents and that his passport is the testimony of the fact of his criminal antecedents and that he was in fact deported from Sharjah and if granted bail he would again abscond. The written submissions have been made by the ASP on two occasions first on 30.01.2019 and secondly on 12.03.2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that counsel for the complainant and the State be not allowed to rely upon -3- the documents which do not found to be part of the charge sheet.
To this learned counsel for the State has submitted that although charge sheet has been filed but new material is being sought from the country from which the applicant has come and investigation is still in progress and all such documents which are being referred to shall find place in the supplementary charge sheet. In view of such submissions on behalf of the counsel for the State, the objection by the learned counsel for the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Both learned counsel were heard.
This Court was taken through various documents placed on record which included E-mails. As far as submission that the matter pertains to breach of agreement and the dispute is civil in nature, it needs to be pointed out that the breach of transaction may assume connotation of an offence as well depending upon the facts and circumstances. There is material available on the record to the effect that the applicant showed himself to be a distributor of company called M/s Narvik Aero Engines Ltd. which is a USA based company and in that capacity he claimed to have supplied aircraft engine, however, on counter checking, the said M/s Narvik Aero Engines Ltd. in its E-mail denied that they had designated applicant and his company as its agent or distributor. It also appears that applicant when repeatedly -4- pestered by complainant to return the amount, closed his office and shifted his office and started working in Doha, Quatar. The copies of passport are also placed on record in which words "deportation" and "jail case" have been printed prima facie showing that the applicant was in fact deported from UAE and may have committed an offence as per laws of UAE. The E-mails sent by the applicant to the complainant on 29.06.2015 show that he is having severe financial crisis and his company is in bad shape and agrees that he has to refund the money which is an admission on the part of the applicant that money was transferred to him and he has failed to return the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that very threatening messages were being sent to him by the complainant and one such message of e-mail has been pointed out in which it has been stated that the applicant shall have to face severe consequences which he cannot even imagine. As far as such e-mail is concerned it can be considered to be mental state of an exasperated complainant who has not been able to get back his lost money.
As far as the complainant being influential person so as to approach high ranking police officials directly, the submission that complainant being a government aided agency and the transaction involving trans-border operations with high value stake, it was not inappropriate for -5- complainant to approach the high ranking police officials and nothing should be read into it. It also appears that applicant at no point of time sought to assuage the fears of the complainant that the engine which he was to supply was in fact the same engine model which was ordered by the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the factum of discrepant engine model was brought to the knowledge of complainant by a person who was friend of complainant and not an expert and, therefore, such person should not have been relied upon by the complainant. However, considering that applicant himself was an expert in respect of aircraft engine, he himself ought to have provided all such material to the complainant to allay his fears which he did not do.
Although charge sheet has been filed but as reported more material is being collected which is taking time due to material being obtained from across border and supplementary charge sheet under section 173(8) Cr.P.C shall be filed. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent submits that many pieces of evidence are yet to be collected and the applicant having accessibility outside the country, the fear is not unfounded that on being released the applicant shall flee from India.
-6-Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 2019.03.28 17:57:23 +05'30' hk/