Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Monoranjan Roy S/O Kalachand Rai vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 November, 2020
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
16934/2019
Monoranjan Roy S/o Kalachand Rai, R/o 2/233/b/3 Shri Colony
Ps Netaji Nagar Kolkata Confined In Cenral Jail Jaipur At Present
In The Custody Of Ps Khejuri West Bengal In Case No 47/17 In
Furtherance Of Production Warrant Issued By Ld. Additional Dist.
And Session Judge 3Rd Court Tamluk Purba Midnapur West
Bengal
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bishwajit Bhattarcharyya, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Ankit Bishnoi, through VC
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain, through VC
For State : Mr. Rajendra Yadav, AAG with Mr.
Deshraj Gosingha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
03/11/2020
1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section
439 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 28/2017 was registered at Special Police Station
S.O.G for offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471,
201, 120-B, of I.P.C. and Section 65 I.T. Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
(Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 09:05:06 PM)
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-16934/2019]
the Managing Director of Pincon Group of Companies. The total
amount collected from the State of Rajasthan was to the tune of
Rs. 16 crore. Properties worth about same amount is lying with
the S.O.G. It is also contended that Managing Director is not
responsible as held by the Apex Court in "Maksud Saiyed vs.
State of Gujrat and others" in Criminal Appeal No. 1248/2007
decided by the Apex Court on 18.09.2007 wherein in Para 13 it
was observed by the Apex Court that the India Penal Code does
not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liabilities on the
part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company
when the accused is the company. It is obligatory on the part of
the complainant to make requisite allegation which would attract
the provisions constituting vicarious liability.
4. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner was arrested on 3rd November, 2017, a period of three
years has lapsed. Charge-sheet has been filed. No proceedings
have been initiated. It is also contended that case of petitioner is
not akin to that of Binay Singh and Hari Singh who collected
money on behalf of the company. There is no allegation that
petitioner himself collected any money from the depositors of
Rajasthan and merely because of bail applications of co-accused
have been rejected by this Court and by the Apex court, the same
would not have any effect on the bail application filed by the
petitioner.
5. Counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on "Jinofer
Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujrat", Criminal Appeal No.
460/2020 wherein bail application was granted as the matter was
(Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 09:05:06 PM)
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-16934/2019]
pending adjudication for more than a year. It is also contended
that though the petitioner has been convicted by Sessions Court in
West Bengal, the conviction was under the West Bengal Protection
of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013 which came into force on 14 th
January, 2015. The act could not be given retrospective effect and
the conviction made therein, cannot be a ground for rejection of
the present bail application. It is also contended that petitioner
has remained in custody for a period of three years. He is
suffering from type two diabetes and his medical condition is not
proper.
6. Counsel for the State and counsel for the complainant have
vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by
learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner was the
Managing Director of the Pincon Group, there was no authority of
collecting the deposit and petitioner stands convicted and has
been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Session Court and West
Bengal under the Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013. It
is also contended that total amount which has been collected and
which is now due towards depositors is to the tune of Rs. 790
crores. It is also contended that case of Binay Singh and Hari
Singh cannot be distinguished and the case of petitioner cannot be
said to be on better footing rather he is the Managing Director. He
is solely responsible for collecting the amount from depositors and
for making payment to the depositors with regard to delay in the
trial. It is contended that petitioner has obtained some orders
from the West Bengal Court and on that account he is not turning
up and for that reason he is not being sent to the Courts at
(Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 09:05:06 PM)
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-16934/2019]
Rajasthan and State cannot be said to be responsible for the
delay.
7. Counsel for the petitioner is not aware of any orders having
been passed by the West Bengal Court restraining sending of
petitioner to the Courts at Jaipur.
8. I have considered the contentions.
9. As far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner
are concerned, bail application was granted by the Apex Court in "Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujrat" (Supra) as the trial could not begin despite the petitioner having remained in custody for a period of about a year. The same would not apply on the facts of the present case as in the present case, bail application of co-accused was rejected by this Court and the said order was upheld by the Apex Court. Secondly, petitioner stands convicted under the West Bengal of Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013 by West Bengal Session Court and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and the total amount which he owes on the date of maturity to the depositors through out the country is to the tune of Rs. 790 crores.
10. As far as "Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujrat" (Supra) is concerned present is not the stage to decide on the vicarious liabilities of the petitioner, more particularly he being a Managing Director of Pincon Group and he was responsible for the collection made by the Pincon Group and for non-payment to the depositors. Further he stands convicted and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and the bail application of co-accused stands rejected by the Court. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the Bail (Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 09:05:06 PM) (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16934/2019] Application.
11. Criminal Misc. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /3 (Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 09:05:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)