Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Goel vs State Of U.P. on 28 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1985
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2766 of 2020 Applicant :- Sanjay Goel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Tushar Oberoi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Sri Swetashwa Agarwal has been heard through video link on behalf of the applicant, Sri P.K. Sahi, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and Sri Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit on behalf of the first informant Sunil Kumar Mina.
The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2019 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar. The allegation in the FIR is that the first informant entered into an agreement with Bike Boat powered by Garvit Innovative Promotes Ltd. Company whose owner was one Sanjay Bhati. The other Directors of the Company are Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karanpal Singh. The agreement was for providing money for 51 Bikes under a Bike Bot Scheme similar to Ola and Uber. The first informant, accordingly invested Rs.34 lakhs and was promised a return of Rs.75 lakhs in total. The further allegation in the FIR was that in fact, the Company did not operate the online taxi service but indulged in money rotation and kept on enticing new persons to invest. It is further alleged that although by the time, First Information Report was lodged, the first informant was entitled to a return of Rs.6,45,000/-, but he had received only Rs.66,000/-. It is admitted fact that the applicant is not named in the First Information Report. His name surfaced, for the first time, on basis of information received by the Investigating Agency from the office of the Registrar of Company, wherein the applicant was shown as an Additional Director for certain period alongwith 18 other persons.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is completely innocent person. He did not enter into any agreement with the first informant nor signed any cheque, nor received any money from the Company. It is also the case of the applicant that he himself is victim of the mischievous activities of the Company, as he and his family members have themselves invested huge amount, details whereof have been given in para 40 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. It is also the specific case of the applicant that the main accused namely Sanjay Bhati, signatory of the agreement, had filed a 482 petition before this Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.1537 of 2020 challenging the charge sheet filed against him and one of the pleas raised by him in the said petition was that the entire amount invested by the first informant had been returned to him. In this regard, documentary evidence has been brought on record. Sri Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit, learned counsel for the first informant had admitted that the first informant had received the money through cheque. Having regard to the said plea, this Court in 482 petition filed by Sanjay Bhati passed an interim order in his favour on 17.1.2020 to the effect that no coercive steps would be taken against him. It is also the case of the applicant that two other Additional Directors whose name also figured on basis of information received by the Investigating Agency from the office of the Registrar of Company namely Rajesh Singh Yadav and Harish Kumar, have already been granted bail by the court below by order dated 5.3.2020. A copy of the said order has been brought on record alongwith supplementary affidavit. It is also the case the applicant that he remained Additional Director of the Company for a short period of about 23 days having been inducted on 22.12.2018 and resigned on 14.1.2019. In regard to the criminal history, it is submitted that all other cases are in respect of the same scheme by different investors and that apart from it, there is no other criminal history of the applicant. It is urged that having regard to the above facts, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the applicant undertakes to participate in the trial regularly and that he would not coerce any prosecution witness.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application contending that the applicant is atleast vicariously liable. It is submitted that he was part of a big conspiracy hatched by the Company to dupe innocent persons. However, he has not disputed the fact that the main accused Sanjay Bhati has been granted interim relief by this Court on the plea that the amount invested by the first informant had been returned to him and also the fact that other co-accused, having similar role, had been granted bail by the court below.
Learned counsel for the first informant, though opposed the bail, but admitted that the first informant had received back the amount from the main accused, though the said amount does not include his profit.
Having considered the facts of the case and the submissions made, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the applicant - Sanjay Goel involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.2 lakh and two sureties each for a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to further following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and shall cooperate in the investigation and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail otherwise it would become a ground for cancellation of bail.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.
The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 28.5.2020 SL