Jharkhand High Court
Nishit Kumar Misra @ Nishit Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 January, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.5949 of 2019
------
1. Nishit Kumar Misra @ Nishit Kumar Mishra
2. Gautam Basak @ Gautam Bashak ... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Pradeep Chitlagia ... Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Ms. Sidhi Jalan, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Luxmi Murmu, Addl. P.P.
For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No.06 Dated- 22.01.2020
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.93 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.1806 of 2018 (G.R. No.2971 of 2018) registered under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Heard the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the brief facts of the case is that the co-accused persons, informant and other persons were directors of M/s Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and the bank account of the company is used by the co-accused Pramod Maheshwari and the allegation against the petitioners is that both of them were appointed as Additional Directors of the said company namely M/s Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd on 17.02.2018 and in criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons they got submitted a fake resolution in the Bank of India by displacing the informant from the post of Director and replacing him with petitioner No.1 who is an employee of another company of which the co-accused Narain Holani is the Director namely Acmechem Private Ltd. It is further submitted that the co-accused Narain Holani resigned and released from the liability of the company on and from 04.03.2016 and from that date onwards he has no concern with the said M/s Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd. It is next submitted that the main allegation is against the co-accused Pramod Maheshwari and Saurav Maheshwari, the co-accused Nos.1 and 2 of the complaint and till 12.02.2018, the petitioners were no way associated with the said company. It is also submitted that even after exit from the company, the existing directors sought guidance from the co-accused persons for the business and in February, 2018 in their presence a settlement has been arrived at between the existing directors of the company and at their instance the existing directors have resolved to settle the matter amicably and according to which Pramod Maheshwari would pay Rs.4,00,00,000/- to the informant by 31.03.2018 and in case of failure, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- shall be charged as penalty and in the said settlement both the parties have to put their signatures but these two petitioners are not the signatory to the said settlement. It is further submitted that a fake resolution has allegedly been submitted for displacing the informant from the post of Director and replacing them by the two petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioners were no way associated with the said Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd.; by the time the alleged fake resolution was prepared and submitted to the Bank. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners are no way responsible for the said criminal acts. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false and since the complaint which upon being forwarded to police upon which the F.I.R. was lodged is not supported by affidavit, hence, in view of principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287, the registration of the FIR is illegal. It is next submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 (E) of the anticipatory bail application and the allegation of involvement of the petitioners in a conspiracy is only a figment of imagination of the informant. It is also submitted that the co-accused persons, with similar allegations, have already been given the privileges of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.08.2019 and 24.10.2019 passed in A.B.A. Nos.5192 of 2019 and 5055 of 2019. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl. P.P. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 oppose the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant has filed an affidavit before the trial court in support of the contents of his complaint to be true and not supporting the contents of a complaint by an affidavit is a curable irregularity. Hence, it is submitted that no fault could be found because of not supporting the complaint by an affidavit. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 drawing attention of this Court towards page-41 of the brief submits that the petitioner No.2 also in capacity of Director certified the copy of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of Prateek Agro Experts Pvt. Ltd. along with the co-accused Pramod Maheshwari indicating the exit of the previous Director being the informant to be true and the entry of the petitioners as new Directors were intimated to the Bank of India after a considerable delay which smacks of a criminal conspiracy in which the petitioners were squarely involved.
Learned counsel for the petitioners countered the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 regarding the curability of the irregularity of not supporting the contents of the complaint by an affidavit by submitting that the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the judgment in Criminal Revision No.252 of 2019 dated 31.07.2019 has held that non-filing of such affidavit in support of a complaint is rectifiable one but the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 02.09.2018 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7694 of 2019 having stayed the operation of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital; the net effect is that Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) holds the field and the learned counsel for the petitioners further submits regarding page-44 of the brief that in the said page-44, the said signature of the informant does not appear and the petitioner No.2 has signed the page no. 41 on the basis of page-44 - in which the alleged forged signature of the informant with the signature of the co-accused Pramod Maheshwari is appearing but the petitioner No.2 had no knowledge that the signature of the informant over page-44 is forged.
Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the above named petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Hence, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of this order, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M., Ranchi, in connection with Ratu P.S. Case No.93 of 2018 arising out of Complaint Case No.1806 of 2018 (G.R. No.2971 of 2018) with the condition that the petitioners will cooperate with the investigation of the case and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and will furnish their mobile number and a copy of their Aadhar Card in the court below with the undertaking that they will not change their mobile number during the pendency of the case and subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Animesh//