Bombay High Court
Jitendra Subhash Wani vs Vineet S/O. Subhash Chander Gupta And ... on 8 July, 2019
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
42-ABA-818-2019.odt
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
42 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.818 OF 2019
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2213 OF 2019
1. RAJESH GULSHANRAI SAIGAL
2. ANU RAJESH SAIGAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 814 OF 2019
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2212 OF 2019
1. VINEET SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA
2. MRS. NUPUR W/O VINEET GUPTA
3. NEERAJ S/O ASHOK KUMAR GANJOO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Senior Advocate for the Applicants in ABA's: Mr. R.N. Dhorde
i/b Mr. V.R. Dhorde
APP for Respondents/State: Mr. R.V. Dasalkar
Advocate to assist the APP: Mr. S.S. Bora
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 8th July, 2019
PER COURT:-
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant
in Criminal Application No.2213 of 2019 and Criminal
Application No.2212 of 2019. For the reasons stated in the
applications, the same are allowed in terms of prayer clause
"B" and disposed of accordingly.
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::
42-ABA-818-2019.odt
-2-
2. The applicants in both applications bearing
Anticipatory Bail Application Nos.818 of 2019 and 814 of 2019
are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.150 of
2019 registered with Zilla Peth Police Station, District Jalgaon
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with
Section 34 of IPC. Their applications with similar prayer bearing
Criminal Bail Application Nos.464 of 2019 and 463 of 2019
came to be rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon vide order dated 17.06.2019.
3. The learned senior counsel for the applicants
submits that the informant's company is dealing in the range
of chemicals, bulk drugs, equipments, instruments, specialized
chemicals for various industries related to water filter tank,
waste treatment, paper textile etc. It has been alleged that the
company named and styled as 'Tetrakem' used to purchase
various chemicals from informant's company. The applicant
no.2 - Anu Rajesh Saigal in anticipatory bail application No.818
of 2019 and Mrs. Nupur Vineet Gupta in anticipatory bail
application No.814 of 2019 are the Directors of the said
Tetrakem Company and other applicants are also concerned
with the work of the said Tetrakem Company. As per rules and
regulations framed by the Government of Maharashtra it was
the duty of the seller to pay sales tax at the rate of 6%.
However, if the purchaser provides to the seller 'Form-C' then
there is a concession and the informant's company is required
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::
42-ABA-818-2019.odt
-3-
to pay 2% of the sales tax amount. It has been alleged that
though the said Tetrakem company has agreed to supply
'Form-C' failed to fulfill the said promise. In consequence
thereof, the informant's company who has supplied goods
worth of Rs.01,40,54,334/- to the applicant's company
Tetrakem for want of 'Form-C', the informant's company is
likely to incur additional expenses of Rs.7,78,928/-. It has been
thus alleged in the complaint that the Directors and other
applicants connected with the said Tetrakem company have
cheated the informant's company and put the company to loss.
The learned senior counsel, on instructions, submits that those
'Form-C' are available with the Directors of the said 'Tetrakem
Company' and they are ready to give those 'Form-C' to the
informant's company. The learned senior counsel submits that
applicant no.1 in anticipatory bail application No.814 of 2019,
namely, Vineet S/o Subhash Chander Gupta came to be
implicated in the crime only for the reason that he happened to
be the husband of applicant No.2 Mrs. Nupur Gupta, who is
Director of the said 'Tetrakem Company' and Applicant No.3
Neeraj is merely an employee of the said 'Tetrakem Company'.
The learned senior counsel submits that in the given set of
allegations, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not
required. Their antecedents are clear. They may be released on
anticipatory bail.
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::
42-ABA-818-2019.odt
-4-
4. The learned APP, assisted by Mr. S.S. Bora learned
advocate, has strongly resisted the application on the ground
that names of the applicants are mentioned in the FIR with
specific role attributed to them. During the period from 2014 to
2017, the 'Form-C' are not given by the said 'Tetrakem
Company' and as such, the informant's company is likely to
incur the loss of Rs.7,78,928/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Seventy
Eight Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Eight Only) for want of
'Form-C'. The learned APP submits that all the applicants are
not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
5. On going through the allegations made in the
complaint and on perusal of the investigation papers, I find
that allegations have been made to the limited extent that the
said 'Tetrakem Company' has not handed over the 'Form-C' to
the informant's company and as a result thereof, the
informant's company is required to pay more sales tax. It
further appears that on submitting the 'Form-C' at present, the
informant's company is not likely to pay the sales tax at the
rate of 6%. The learned senior counsel, on instructions, has
submitted before the Court that the said 'Form-C' are available
with the counsel and the applicants are ready to hand over the
said 'Form-C' to the informant's company today in the Court
itself. The learned counsel for the informant assisting the
learned APP submits that the said 'Form-C' may be sent to the
informant's company. It thus appears that anticipating the loss
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::
42-ABA-818-2019.odt
-5-
of paying the sales tax at higher rate, the informant's company
has preferred to lodge a complaint. Since those 'Form-C' are
now available, there is no reason to deny anticipatory bail to
the applicants whose custodial interrogation is not required in
the given set of allegations. So far as the Directors of the said
'Tetrakem Company' are concerned, they are the women
Directors and the other persons are merely the employees.
Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, I am inclined to
grant bail to all the applicants with certain conditions. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
I. Both applications are hereby allowed.
II. In the event of arrest of the applicants i.e. RAJESH GULSHANRAI SAIGAL and ANU RAJESH SAIGAL in anticipatory bail application No.818 of 2019 and applicants i.e. VINEET S/O. SUBHASH CHANDER GUPTA, MRS. NUPUR W/O. VINEET GUPTA and NEERAJ S/O. ASHOK KUMAR GANJOO in anticipatory bail application no.814 of 2019, in connection with Crime No.150 of 2019 registered with Zilla Peth Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) each, with one surety each of the like amount, on the following conditions;
a. The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::42-ABA-818-2019.odt -6- b. The applicants shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer on a notice of 72 hours for their attendance in the police station in connection with this crime.
c. The applicant No.2 ANU RAJESH SAIGAL in anticipatory bail application No.818 of 2019 and applicant no.2 Mrs. Nupur W/o Vineet Gupta in anticipatory bail No.814 of 2019, who are the Directors of 'Tetrakem Company' shall forward the said 'Form-C' to the informant's company as agreed at the earliest.
III. Both anticipatory bail applications are disposed of accordingly.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) Sam...
::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2019 00:52:43 :::