Sachin Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Sachin Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 14 May, 2024

2. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Roopak Chaubey, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the records.

3. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Sachin Bhati, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B IPC and Section58B sub-section (4-A) of the RBI Act, 1934 and Section 58A of Company Act, 1956, registered at P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

4. The present case started on an F.I.R. being lodged on 12.02.2019 by Sunil Kumar Meena s/o Devi Lal Meena resident of Flat No.- GF1, Bhavya Praide Apartment, S.K.I.T. Engineering College near Jagatpura, Jaipur against Sanjay Bhati, Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh alleging that in the first week of October he entered into an agreement with a Bike Taxi Company by depositing Rs. 34 lakhs. The name of the company was Bike Bot powered by Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited, the owner of the said company is Sanjay Bhati and the other directors of the company are Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh. The company was having its registered office at Plot No.1, Chiti, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. and the other offices of the company are situated at Dadri and Grand Venis Mall, Noida. The informant has executed an agreement with Sanjay Bhati on a stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- with the postulation that the company will open franchise by giving him 51 bikes which would be operated like Ola Bike and Uber in Jaipur and as per the terms of the agreement the salary of 51 drivers will be given by the company and the company shall also provide rent of bike parking @ 200/- per bike. The informant came to know about the company from the Manager of Andhara Bank, Branch Jagat Pura, Jaipur who also informed him that he has also invested in six bikes and on further enquiry the informant came to know that many people of Jaipur who are acquainted to him have also invested in the said company. Each one of them were getting payment per month by the company but after 01-02 months the company stopped the payment. The informant was to get Rs. 6,45,000/- in his bank account of Andhara Bank but he received only Rs. 66,000/- from the company and since the last two months neither he nor anyone has received any money. The company has no bike online booking app. The informant many times visited the company but the officials told him that they only keep bikes for showing while the company earns by making people join the company and he should also pursue people to join the company if he wants to earn. Apart from 51 bikes only 26 bikes have been sent to the informant. The informant has came to know that the owner of the company Sanjay Bhati has appointed another CEO of the company, grabbed money of everyone and has cheated everyone. The company is not providing any bike taxi services rather it is rotating money as chit fund company. The company has promised to pay Rs. 75 lakhs from of investment of Rs. 34 lakhs. The company has done fraud with many people, the bank accounts of the company be seized and his report be lodged.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation in the FIR against the applicant. It is further submitted that the company M/s. Gravit Innovative Promotors Ltd. (GIPL) was incorporated on 20.07.2010 and the applicant was the Director of the said Company from its inception but he resigned on 14.02.2017. It is submitted that the scheme of bike bot was launched by Sanjay Bhati, the brother of the applicant, on 1st of July, 2017 and the FIR has been lodged on 12.02.2019 which is, much after the resignation of the applicant and launching of the scheme. It is further submitted that the applicant was having a very meager shareholding of .38 per cent only. It is further submitted that co-accused Pawan Bhati has been granted bail by the Apex Court and he was having a shareholding of only .19 per cent. It is further submitted that co-accused Adesh Bhati @ Ajit Bhati and Sunil Kumar Prajapati have been granted bail, the copies of the bail orders have been placed before the court which are Annexure 6 to the affidavit. It is argued further that co-accused Lalit Kumar has been granted bail by the Apex Court, copy of the order has been produced before the Court, which is taken on record. It is submitted that as such, the applicant be released on bail.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report. It is submitted that the applicant was a shareholder of .38 per cent in GIPL. Further while placing paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted that GIPL and its sister companies and Independent TV (earlier known as Reliance Big TV Ltd.) opened 21 bank accounts in different banks and Rs.29,76,52,09,644.62 were received from approximately 2,46,462 investors. It is submitted that bail of identically placed co-accused Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Saha has been rejected vide order dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 727 of 2023 (Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Saha Vs. State of U.P.). The accused then approached the Apex Court challenging the said order dated 18.10.2023 and his petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 14555 of 2023 (Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Saha Vs. State of U.P.) has been dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2023, copy of the orders have been produced before the Court which are taken on record. It is further ordered that co-accsued Tarun Kumar applied for bail before this Court which has been rejected vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13223 of 2023 (Tarun Kumar vs. State of U.P.). It is further submitted that against the said order dated 06.07.2023 accused Tarun Kumar filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11675 of 2023 (Tarun Kumar vs. The State of UP) before the Apex Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2023. It is next submitted that even considering .38 per cent of the entire scam, the applicant would be having his share to the tune of Rs.11 crores. Learned counsel has further disputed the resignation as argued to have been given by the applicant. It is submitted that the same is an eye wash inasmuch as the applicant shows to have resigned from GIPL but no resignation has been given by him in the sister companies of GIPL. It is submitted that applicant is one of the Directors of the Company. Further while placing paragraph no.3 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is submitted that money was transferred in the personal account of the applicant from the sister companies of the GIPL and, as such, the applicant was a beneficiary of the money collected from investors in the name of the scheme. It is submitted that money of the investors has been siphoned off in a planned manner. It is further argued that the applicant is involved in as many as 118 cases and even a first informant report has been lodged against him under the Gangsters Act, in which, his bail application has been rejected by the concerned trial court.

7. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was a Director of GIPL from its inception. The factum regarding his resignation is disputed. The investigation has concluded and a charge sheet in the matter has been submitted against him and other co-accused persons. He was a share holder of .38 per cent in the Company. The pleadings in the supplementary counter affidavit show that money has been received by him in his personal account from the sister companies of GIPL. The bail of co-accused Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Saha was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2023. The said order reads as under :

"1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Anil Kumar Shah@ Ani Saha, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2019, under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 12.02.2019 by Sunil Kumar Meena s/o Devi Lal Meena resident of Flat NO.-GF1, Bhavya Praide Apartment, S.K.I.T. Engineering College near Jagatpura, Jaipur against Sanjay Bhati, Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh is that in the first week of October he entered into an agreement with a Bike Taxi Company by depositing Rs. 34 lakhs. The name of the company was Bike Bot powered by Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited, the owner of the said company is Sanjay Bhati and the other directors of the company are Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh. The company was having its registered office at Plot No.1, Chiti, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. and the other offices of the company are situated at Dadri and Grand Vanis Mall, Noida. The informant has executed the agreement with Sanjay Bhati on a stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- with the postulation that the company will open franchise by giving informant 51 bikes which would be operated like Ola Bike and Uber in Jaipur and as per the terms of the agreement the salary of 51 drivers will be given by the company and the company shall also provide rent of bike parking @ 200/- per bike. The informant came to know about the company from the Manger of Andhara Bank, Branch Jagat Pura, Jaipur who also informed him that he has also invested in six bikes and on further enquiry the informant came to know that many people of Jaipur who are acquainted to him have also invested in the said company. Each one of them were getting payment per month by the company but after 01-02 months the company stopped the payment. The informant was to get Rs. 6,45,000/- in his bank account of Andhara Bank but he received only Rs. 66,000/- from the company and since the last two months neither he nor anyone has received any money. The company has no bike online booking app. The informant many times visited the company but the officials told him that they only keep bikes for showing while the company earns by making people join the company and he should also pursue people to join the company if he wants to earn. Apart from 51 bikes only 26 bikes have been sent to the informant. The informant has came to know that the owner of the company Sanjay Bhati has appointed another CEO of the company, grabbed money of everyone and has cheated everyone. The company is not providing any bike taxi services rather it is rotating money as chit fund company. The company has promised to pay Rs. 75 lakhs from of investment of Rs. 34 lakhs. The company has done fraud with many people, the bank accounts of the company be seized and his report be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. It is argued that the implication of the applicant has surfaced in the matter after two years of lodging of the first information report. It is argued that Deepak Tayal a witness in the matter was interrogated u/s 161 Cr.P.C. who did not state anything about the applicant. Subsequently his statement was again recorded for the second time on 10.08.2021 in which only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant and 07 named persons and others. It is argued that the applicant is not involved in the management of the company and is neither a shareholder of the company. It is further argued that the applicant is an accused in one other case lodged in Delhi pertaining to Bike Bot matter. It is argued that the applicant has been booked under the U.P. Gangsters & Anti-Social Activities Act (Prevention), 1986 in a very stereo typed manner along with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel has argued that the Memorandum of Understanding was executed between M/s Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited and M/s Saha Infratech Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Abet Builtech Pvt. Ltd. which are the companies of the applicant and money was transferred for booking of nine flats by G.I.P.L. It is argued that the said nine flats have been attached by the Enforcement Directorate but the same would go to show that the transactions were not in any manner sham transactions in a clandestine way. It is argued that the said transactions were genuine and were transactions through bank. It is argued that co-accused Sanjay Goel, Adesh Bhati @ Ajeet Bhati, Sunil Kumar Prajapati @ Sunil Prajapati and Rekha Rani have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches including this Bench of this Court vide orders dated 28.05.2020, 20.07.2021, 27.01.2022 and 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 2766 of 2020, 21115 of 2021, 26288 of 2021 with 26884 of 2021 and 56777 of 2022, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-31 to the affidavit. Further co-accused Lalit Kumar has been granted bail by the Apex Court vide order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1170-1178 of 2022, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 11.01.2023. It is further argued while placing paragraph 122 of the affidavit that the applicant is an old ailing man aged about 65 years. The applicant and is in jail since 12.12.2020.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is argued that on the own showing of the applicant from paragraph 4 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit dated 28.08.2023 the applicant is involved in 05 other cases and 07 cases pertaining to Bike Bot scam. It is argued that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.09.2018 shows the acquisition price of the target company is approximately Rs. 09 lakhs. It is argued that it was further stated that the parties shall enter into separate share purchase agreement for each of the target companies. It is argued that perusal of paragraph 69 of the affidavit in support of the bail application goes to show that the transfer of funds were much earlier to the company of the applicant from the date of lodging of the first information report. It is further argued that there has been siphoning of funds by transferring the funds collected in the scam under the garb of the applicant for purchase of flats. It is argued that attachment of the said properties by the Enforcement Directorate is after their satisfaction of money being laundered and after they have satisfied with the misuse of funds through money trail. It is argued that the said money was transferred to the company of the applicant just to legalize it. It is further argued that the applicant is a beneficiary of money received from investors. The applicant is further involved in signing forged cheques. Learned counsel has argued that G.I.P.L. and its sister companies and Independent TV (earlier known as Reliance Big TV Ltd.) opened 21 bank accounts in different banks and Rs. 29,76,52,09,644.62 were received from approximate 2,46,462 investors. The applicant was instrumental in motivating the investors to invest their money in G.I.P.L. While placing paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit it is argued that as per the bank statements obtained by the Investigating Officer the companies of the applicant received Rs. 21,67,00,177/- transferred by G.I.P.L. and its sister companies. It is argued that the applicant is seriously involved in the present matter. He by receiving money in his companies was a direct beneficiary of the money collected by cheating and forgery. It is argued that the bail application thus deserves to be rejected.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the companies of the applicant received money from G.I.P.L. in their account for flats booked by G.I.P.L. The flats have been attached by the Enforcement Directorate which goes to show that money has been laundered and money trail was found to be showing criminality. The applicant was thus the beneficiary of the money collected by G.I.P.L. from investors by committing fraud and cheating on them. The investigation in the matter has concluded and charge-sheet has been submitted in which the implication of the applicant has surfaced. No ground for bail is made out.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected. "

8. The order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Apex Court against the order dated 18.10.2023 in the case of Anil Kumar Shah @ Anil Saha reads as under:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

9. The order dated 06.07.2023 passed in the case of co-accused Tarun Kumar reads as under:

"1. Heard Sri Anay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

2. This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Tarun Kumar, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2019, under Section 420, 467, 471, 409, 201, 120-B I.P.C., registered at Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. The prosecution case as per the F.I.R. lodged on 12.02.2019 by Sunil Kumar Meena s/o Devi Lal Meena resident of Flat NO.-GF1, Bhavya Praide Apartment, S.K.I.T. Engineering College near Jagatpura, Jaipur against Sanjay Bhati, Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh is that in the first week of October he entered into an agreement with a Bike Taxi Company by depositing Rs. 34 lakhs. The name of the company was Bike Bot powered by Gravit Innovative Promoter Limited, the owner of the said company is Sanjay Bhati and the other directors of the company are Rajesh Bhardwaj, Sunil Kumar Prajapati, Dipti Bahal, Sachin Bhati and Karan Pal Singh. The company was having its registered office at Plot No.1, Chiti, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, U.P. and the other offices of the company are situated at Dadri and Grand Vanis Mall, Noida. The informant has executed the agreement with Sanjay Bhati on a stamp paper of Rs. 1000/- with the postulation that the company will open franchise by giving informant 51 bikes which would be operated like Ola Bike and Uber in Jaipur and as per the terms of the agreement the salary of 51 drivers will be given by the company and the company shall also provide rent of bike parking @ 200/- per bike. The informant came to know about the company from the Manger of Andhara Bank, Branch Jagat Pura, Jaipur who also informed him that he has also invested in six bikes and on further enquiry the informant came to know that many people of Jaipur who are acquainted to him have also invested in the said company. Each one of them were getting payment per month by the company but after 01-02 months the company stopped the payment. The informant was to get Rs. 6,45,000/- in his bank account of Andhara Bank but he received only Rs. 66,000/- from the company and since the last two months neither he nor anyone has received any money. The company has no bike online booking app. The informant many times visited the company but the officials told him that they only keep bikes for showing while the company earns by making people join the company and he should also pursue people to join the company if he wants to earn. Apart from 51 bikes only 26 bikes have been sent to the informant. The informant has came to know that the owner of the company Sanjay Bhati has appointed another CEO of the company, grabbed money of everyone and has cheated everyone. The company is not providing any bike taxi services rather it is rotating money as chit fund company. The company has promised to pay Rs. 75 lakhs from of investment of Rs. 34 lakhs. The company has done fraud with many people, the bank accounts of the company be seized and his report be lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the applicant is not named in the first information report. His implication has surfaced in the matter during investigation. It is further argued while placing paragraph 4 of the affidavit that the name of the applicant surfaced in the matter on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused. Learned counsel has further argued that in the counter affidavit dated 25.3.2023 on behalf of the State in paragraph 14 it is stated that the applicant has received about four lakhs from GIPL in his bank account of Central Bank of India. It is further argued while placing paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit being reply to paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit that all the money as received by the applicant is a part of his salary. It is argued that the applicant thus was not in any manner benefitted by the said scheme as floated by the co-accused Sanjay Bhati for which the said company was incorporated. It is further argued that charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted in the present case in which the name of the applicant appears as an accused at serial no.26. It is argued that co-accused Adesh Bhati @ Ajeet Bhati, Sunil Kumar Prajapati @ Sunil Prajapati and Rekha Rani have been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches including this Bench of this Court vide orders dated 20.07.2021, 27.01.2022 and 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 21115 of 2021, 26288 of 2021 with 26884 of 2021 and 56777 of 2022, the copy of the said orders is annexed as Annexure-24, 25 & 26 to the affidavit. It is further argued while placing paragraph 35 of the affidavit that the applicant is involved in 05 other cases arising out of the same incident from the Bike Bot Scheme, the disclosure and explanation of the same has been given in the said paragraph. It is argued that there was one other case in which the applicant was involved which was of the State of Rajasthan. In the said case the trial of the applicant has concluded and he has been acquitted of the charges levelled against him vide judgement & order dated 18.04.2023. Paragraph 3 and Annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit being the said judgement & order has been placed before the Court to buttress the same. The applicant is in jail since 13.08.2019.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is actively involved in the present matter like other accused persons. While placing paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit it is argued that the applicant joined GIPL company as Customer Care Head in the year 2018 and soon thereafter he was appointed as CEO of the said company. He we well aware of the fact that Bike Bot Scheme has been floated which is a forged scheme just in order to commit forgery and embezzle hard earned money of the investors. It is argued that as being a CEO of the company, the applicant was looking after its day to day affairs and working of the company and was also involved in the policy making of the company. It is argued that the applicant is one of the beneficiaries of the Bike Bot Scheme and was found to be actively involved. Learned counsel has further argued that the present case is a case of huge amount of embezzlement and is a case in which the accused persons have committed forgery and embezzled huge amount of the investors. It is argued that the applicant has received huge amount in his bank account from GIPL. It is argued that the implication of the applicant has surfaced during investigation. He is one of the beneficiaries of the said scheme as he was working as CEO of GIPL who had initiated Bike Bot Scheme. While placing paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit it is argued that GIPL and its sister companies and Independent TV (earlier knows as Reliance Big TV Ltd.) opened total 21 bank accounts in different banks and Rs. 29,76,52,09,644.62/- were received from approximately 2,46,462 investors. The aforesaid funds were transferred from the account of GIPL to 59 companies including Reliance Big TV Ltd. Further while placing paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit it is argued that the applicant had put forged signatures of Karan Pal Singh who was the authorized signatory of GIPL on a number of post dated cheques which were given to investors to defraud them. The said fact emerged during investigation. The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material including the documents to substantiate the prosecution version. It is argued that as such the bail application of the application deserves to be rejected.

6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the applicant was working in GIPL company as Customer Care Head in the year 2018 after which he was soon appointed as CEO of the company. Being the CEO of the company it cannot be said that he was not aware of the facts that the scheme of Bike Bot was a scam launched to defraud the investors. The total amount embezzled is more than rupees two thousand nine hundred seventy six crores from approximately 2,46,462 investors. The scheme was a well-planned and an organized economic crime. The applicant received money in his bank account from the company and as such cannot be said to be not the beneficiary of it.

7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the post on which the applicant was working, the nature of incident and the amount embezzled, this Court does not find it a fit case for bail, hence, the bail application is rejected."

10. The order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar is as follows:

"We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed. We, however, clarify that the mpugned order and the dismissal of the present special leave petition will not come in the way of the petitioner ? Tarun Kumar filing a fresh application for grant of bail in case of change in circumstances or if the trial gets prolonged due to reasons not attributable to the petitioner ? Tarun Kumar.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

11. Looking to the facts of the case, the nature of the offence, the gravity of incident, the magnitude of money involved, the applicant being beneficiary of the money collected through cheating, the criminal antecedents of the applicant, the fact that the applicant was the Director of the Company since a long time and the rejection of bail of co-accused by this Court and the Apex Court, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for bail.

12. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 Priya (Samit Gopal, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court