Allahabad High Court
Ravi Kumar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. on 13 October, 2020
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32700 of 2020 Applicant :- Ravi Kumar Rastogi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar,Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Onkar Singh Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Onkar Singh and Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsels for the informant and learned AGA for the State.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ravi Kumar Rastogi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 632 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Daurala, District- Meerut, during pendency of trial.
Allegations in the FIR are that alleged incident is said to have taken place at unknown time and date, for which the FIR was lodged on 09.11.2018 at 09:07 p.m. According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that in June, 2015, the informant after coming to know about an advertisement in the newspaper that under the Samajwadi Avas Yojna flats are being constructed, approached the office of AARVANSS Color City Pvt. Ltd. in association with Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. situated at Samauli Salempur, where she was informed by the applicant and other co-accused named in the FIR that if she books a flat in the aforesaid scheme, she would get a flat in three years. It is alleged that the informant booked two flats and made a total payment of Rs. 6,42,142/-. The last payment according to the informant was made by her on 09.11.2015. The informant further alleges in the FIR that she was handed over allotment letters on 22.3.2016 and was asked to take possession after payment of remaining amount in June, 2018. The information neither found any office of the company nor did she find any official of the company when she went to take possession in June, 2018. It is further alleged that the informant called the accused persons on many occasions and claimed her money back, but she was assaulted and abused. The informant allegedly gave an application at police station Daurala, but no action was taken. The informant further gave applications to various higher authorities, but no action was taken. The informant lastly gave an application to S.S.P., Meerut, through registered post on 30.8.2018, but no action was taken. Hence as such the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 6.9.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is lawyer by profession practicing on tax side. He has been implicated in 44 such cases. The applicant was not Director of any company, when the informant booked flat on 01.7.2015. The applicant joined as Director on 18.12.2015 of the company, namely, AARVANSS CC infra Pvt. Ltd. The land on which the construction was to be made belonged to the company, namely, Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. applied for registration with Awas Bandhu, Uttar Pradesh in the Samajwadi Awas Yojna under 'D' category. After becoming Director of AARVANSS, he came to know that Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. had liability of more than three corers towards the Income Tax Department and the land whereon construction was to be made was incapable of same on account of section 281 of Income Tax Act. Therefore, no construction can be made thereon. In the balance sheet, the company did not disclosed the aforesaid liability. The applicant sent the representations to various authorities highlighting on the mala fides on the part of the Directors of Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. As a part payment of the cost of land Rs.50 lacs were paid on 6.7.2015, prior to the applicant joining the company as Director. The applicant had no role in attracting investments in this project. The offence alleged are not made against the applicant. Rather the applicant was cheated by Pratik Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The applicant is a responsible person and undertakes to cooperate with the trial. He is in jail since 19.3.2020.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that for prosecuting the applicant, the implication of company was necessary since he is vicariously liable for affairs of the company. No money was accepted by him in his personal account. He has relied the judgment of the Apex Court Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 781. He has further submitted that the cases, which have been lodged subsequently arise out of the same transaction and therefore, cannot be considered to be long criminal history of the applicant in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 6 Supreme Court Cases 348, BAbubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254, T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 181.
Learned AGA and learned counsels for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Learned counsels for the informant have stated that applicant may be directed to refund the amount deposited by the informant in the company of the applicant as directed by this Court in the case of co-accused, Akhilesh Chauhan, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29912 of 2019 and 50299 of 2019.
Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has rejoined and submitted that since money was not deposited in the personal account of the applicant, therefore such a direction would not be in accordance with law. The money was deposited in the account of the company and only after the assets of the company are liquidated, the informant can claim her money back. The company is a juristic person itself.
Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
2. The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
3. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
4. In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
5. The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. In case court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of bail bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.
6. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
7. 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 case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Ruchi Agrahari