Allahabad High Court
Yogesh Kumar vs Union Of India Thru.Cbi Special Crime ... on 24 November, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6019 of 2022 Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru.Cbi Special Crime Branch(S.C.B.) Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohemmed Amir Naqvi,Abhishek Srivastava,Amjad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The instant bail application relates to FIR registered by the CBI/SCB/Lucknow vide RC 4(S)/ 2019/ C.B.I./ S.C.B./ LKO, under Sections 147, 149, 329, 364A, 386, 394, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC, lodged at Police Station CBI/SCB, District Lucknow.
2. Initially, FIR No. 0810 of 2018 came to be registered under Sections 147, 149, 386, 329, 420, 467, 468, 471, 394, 506 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Krishnanagar, District Lucknow on a complaint given by Shri Mohit Jaiswal dated 28.12.2018.
3. In the said FIR, allegations were made that accused-, Atiq Ahmad, Ex-Parliament Member, Phoolpur, Allahabad (now Prayagraj), who was detained in District Jail, Deoria, was pressuring the complainant, a businessman of real-estate, having office at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow for giving extortion money; due to fear of his life, the complainant had give some extortion money; when the complainant could not pay further extortion money demanded by co-accused, Atiq Ahmad, two henchmen/accomplices of accused, Atiq Ahmad, namely Mohd. Farukh and Zaki Ahmad, who were demanding extortion money on behalf of mafia don, co-accused, Atiq Ahmad, abducted Shri Mohit Jaiswal in his car and took him to District Jail, Deoria where co-accused, Atiq Ahmad was present along with his henchmen/accomplices.
4. Accused, Mohd. Farukh and Zaki Ahmad had taken possession of office of the complainant, forcibly and inducted themselves in the Board of the complainant's four companies, MJ Infra Green Private Limited, MJ Infra Land, LLP and MJ Infra Estate Private Limited; mafia don, co-accused, Atiq Ahmad and his henchmen/accomplices, other co-accused had thrashed the complainant mercilessly inside the jail; his fingers were broken and several internal and external injuries were caused to him; mafia don, co-accused, Atiq Ahmad, in jail premises itself got the papers singed from the complainant for transferring the complainant's four companies, mentioned above, in the name of his associates/accomplices, accused, Mohd. Farukh and Zaki Ahmad; the complainant's Fortuner Car bearing Registration No. UP32-JR/1804 was also snatched from him.
5. Further allegations made in the FIR are that the don had obtained signatures of the complainant, putting him on fear of his life, on blank letter-heads, including his resignation letter and forced him to make forged signature of his sister also on blank papers. Co-accused, Atiq Ahmad also obtained digital signatures of the complainant and his sister and got names of his associates/accomplices inducted in all the four companies.
6. The local police (Police Station Krishnanagar) had filed charge-sheet on 23.03.2019 against eight accused, namely, i. Atiq Ahmad; ii. Mukhtar; iii. Alamgeer; iv. Balkat Ali Ansari; v. Dayanand; vi. Gulam Moinuddin Siddiqui; vii. Irfan; and viii. Gulam Sarvar.
7. When the incident was reported, a petition came to be filed in the Supreme Court by a public-spirited-lawyer, Shri Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, styled as Writ Petition Civil No.699 of 2016 (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and others Vs. Union of India and others).
8. The Supreme Court appointed Senior Advocate, Shri Vijay Hansaria as Amicus Curiae and after considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case and suggestions of the learned Amicus issued following directions on 23.04.2019:-
"i. Investigation with regard to the incident dated 26.12.2018 FIR No.810 of 2018 would stand transferred to the C.B.I. who will submit quarterly Status Report of the progress of investigation to this Court;
ii. Jail officials prima facie involved in the incident dated 26.12.2018 in terms of the two reports of the State Government shall be suspended forthwith by the disciplinary authority and appropriate proceedings in law be registered against them;
iii. Ateek Ahmed shall be transferred to a jail in the State of Gujarat wherein Video Conferencing facilities are available;
iv. Cases pending against Ateeq Ahmed shall be expedited and the trial court is directed to submit quarterly Satus Report of the progress of the trial to the Registry of the High Court of Allahabad;
v. Witness protection in terms of the judgment of this Court in Mahender Chawla & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 2018 (15) SCALE 497, shall be afforded without requirement of filing any application by the witnesses; and vi. The State Government shall within four weeks furnish status of the remaining 80 cases against Ateeq Ahmed (106 registered cases less 26 pending in courts)."
9. There are 106 criminal cases registered against mafia don, co-accused, Atiq Ahmad and he had been transferred to Sabarmati Jail, Gujarat where Video Conferencing facility is available.
10. In compliance of the aforesaid directions issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2019, the C.B.I. took over the investigation and registered the case, as mentioned above.
11. The C.B.I., in its investigation, has opined that complainant, Shri Mohit Jaiswal, could not muster courage earlier to lodge complaint against mafia don, co-accused, Atiq Ahmad, who had been five times Member of Legislative Assembly, one time Member of Parliament and one of the biggest Bahubali, a criminal, against whom 106 criminal cases, including of heinous offences, like murder, abduction, & extortion etc are pending trial. The complainant, Shri Mohit Jaiswal could make complain when he became certain that he would lose his life, besides property in the hands of the accused. Presence of the accused in District Jail, Deoria, on the date of incident, along with co-accused is fully established where complainant, Shri Mohit Jaiswal was brutally assaulted by the accused and divested of his four companies/firms as he could not pay the extortion money. Medico-legal report of the complainant would suggest brutality of the assault by the accused inside the District Jail, Deoria on 26.12.2018, at around 3 p.m.
12. The accused-applicant was an employee in M.J. Group of Companies run and controlled by the complainant. Role of the accused-applicant has been noticed by the CBI in its charge-sheet that the accused-applicant executed supplement agreement in favour of the accused-Mohd Farooq and Jaqi Ahmad, as a result thereof ownership of the companies got transferred in favour of the aforesaid two accused persons. It is further submitted that there is also allegation that some money was transferred in the account of the accused-applicant which on the same day got transferred on the account of the complainant and other directors of the companies.
13. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that whatever he did, it has done under fear of his life because of Mafia don Ateeq Ahmad. They had already abducted and brutally assaulted the complainant inside Deoria Jail. Whatever he committed under the fear and pressure of Mafia don and other accused. The accused-applicant is neither beneficiary nor has any role in commission of the offence. Even the complainant has not made any allegation against the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant has been in jail since 25.04.2022.
14. Mr.Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposes the bail application but does not dispute the fact that the accused-applicant was employed in group of companies controlled and run by the complainant, and he was not the beneficiary of any transaction made by him. He also does not dispute the fact that the complainant has not made any allegation against him. The accused -applicant was not even present when the complainant was abducted and taken into jail and brutally assaulted to make sign for transferring ownership in favour of accused-Mohd Farooq and Jaqi Ahmad. He further submits that the accused-applicant absconded the process of the law, and he surrendered only after issuance of non bailable warrant.
15. Having considered the submissions of the parties and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed along with the bail application, this Court is of the view that since there was no allegation against the accused-applicant by the complainant nor he was present in the jail where the complainant was taken and brutally assaulted and he was made to sign on the papers, and, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
16. Let applicant Yogesh Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(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.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) Order Date :- 24.11.2022 prateek