Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati vs State Of U.P. on 4 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 327
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 12.02.2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 04.03.2021 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8605 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava,Prakash Chandra Srivastava,Sukesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinayak Mithal Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7311 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar @ Aadesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Bahadur Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7040 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar @ Aadesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Bahadur Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7308 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar @ Aadesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Bahadur Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7309 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar @ Aadesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Bahadur Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7364 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar @ Aadesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tej Bahadur Rai,Rakesh Pande (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9746 of 2020 Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sagar Mehrotra,Vinayak Mithal Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
1. Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tej Bahadur Rai and Shri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for the State.
2. The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Ajeet Kumar alias Adesh Bhati in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below :
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8605 of 2020 in case crime no. 361 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7311 of 2020 in case crime no. 602 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 120-B, 468, 471, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7040 of 2020 in case crime no. 603 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 201, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7308 of 2020 in case crime no. 674 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 509, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(v). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7309 of 2020 in case crime no. 592 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7364 of 2020 in case crime no. 697 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 467, 468, 471, 409, 506, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(vii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9746 of 2020 in case crime no. 340 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468,m 409, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
3. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that although several criminal cases have been lodged against the applicant showing him the Director of the company concerned but he was not Director at any point of time of the company concerned. Applicant was only associated with the main accused. Investment was also made by the applicant in the Bike Boat Scheme. Assured profit was not being returned to the applicant as per scheme by the company, as agreed between them, and in lieu of that some post dated cheques were issued by the company in favour of the applicant which did not encash. Thus, applicant himself is the sufferer in the present matters. Amount disclosed in the Counter Affidavit/Supplementary Counter Affidavit said to have been credited in the account of the applicant was the amount returned by the company in lieu of investment made in the scheme. No active role has been assigned to the applicant in any of the FIR lodged against him. It is next contended that the applicant is in jail for the last about one and half year. No prima facie case is made out. Amount invested by the investors was deposited by them in the account of the company concerned or its sister's company to which the applicant has no concern. Properties said to have been purchased by the applicant were also not purchased out of the proceeds of the invested amount of the investors of the Bike Boat Scheme. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the bail orders passed in respect of the co-accused and further argued that Sanjay Goyal, who was Director in the company concerned (annexure no. -6) has been released on bail in some cases. Applicant has also no access to the record. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit and argued that accounts disclosed in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit only reveals that amount was invested by the applicant in the aforesaid scheme and assured profit was returned in the account of the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence are lacking in the present matter. Criminal intention to attract the offences levelled against the applicant in the present matter are also lacking. Applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter on the basis that some amount has been credited in his account by the company concerned. Thus, it was further argued that confessional statement said to have been made before the investigating agency will also not be sufficient to connect the applicant in the present matter as it cannot be read in evidence. Next contention is that although some new pleas have been taken in the rejoinder affidavit yet same are not barred, even oral pleas can also be taken at the time of hearing the bail application. Thus, referring to the entire documents annexed with the application, counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties and also the role assigned to the applicant in the present matters, prayer for bail was made.
4. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the orders passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on different dates in the following bail applications :
(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2766 of 2020 (Sanjay Goel Vs. State of U. P.).
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13343 of 2020 (Sanjay Goel Vs. State of U. P.).
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12943 of 2020 (Sanjay Goel Vs. State of U. P.).
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2946 of 2020 (Adesh Bhati Vs. State of U. P.).
(v) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12526 of 2020 (Rajesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of U. P.).
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11314 of 2020 (Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati Vs. State of U. P.).
(vii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 19423 of 2020 (Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati Vs. State of U. P.).
(viii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8340 of 2020 (Pushpendra Singh Vs. State of U. P.).
5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant. Although he was not Director in the company floated by the main accused yet he was mediator. This fact was admitted by the applicant himself and active participation of the applicant also find support with the fact that huge amount was credited in the account of the applicant from the account of M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited. It is next contended that company was a non banking company and flouting the guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India Act and Companies Act, investment was offered and accepted. Number of investors i.e. more than 2.5 lakhs have invested their amount and they are still waiting for their return. It is next contended that statement made by the applicant before the Investigating Officer also finds support with the contents of the application itself. At initial stage applicant did not take plea that he has invested amount in the Bike Boat Scheme. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the State referred to the documents annexed with the counter and supplementary counter affidavit and further argued that applicant himself had admitted that he was mediator in the scheme. It is next contended that company concerned instead of returning the profit to the investors diverted the same to its sister companies which is against the M.O.U. and the articles of the company. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that more than Rs. 3,500 crores have been invested by the small investors in the scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. All the ingredients of the offences levelled against the applicant in the FIR lodged in the matters are available. Investigating Officer concerned has concluded the specific role of the applicant. Enforcement Directorate has also started proceedings in the matter. It was next contended that applicant cannot be enlarged on bail on the ground of bail order passed in respect of the co-accused as same has not been passed after considering the entire facts, merits of the case have also not been touched with. At this juncture learned counsel for the State also argued that plea of issuance of blank cheques were set up at a belated stage to show that the applicant himself is a sufferer. Applicant has not made clear the actual date of presentation of the cheques before the bank concerned and date of dishonour. This fact also shows that this plea was set up only to create defence. It is also argued that amount has also been credited from Novel Bank in the account of the applicant. Applicant has also not filed any Income Tax Return to show the source of income. Learned counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on the following case laws :
1. Masroor Vesus State of U.P. and Another, (2009) 14 Supreme Court Cases 286.
2. Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Versus Ashis Chatterjee and Another, (2010) 14 Supreme Court Cases 496.
3. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 439.
4. Gautam Kundu Versus Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1
5. State of Bihar and Another Versus Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751.
6. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Nittin Johari and Another, (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 165.
7. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528.
8. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 389.
9. Judgment dated 5.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.8606 of 2020 (Deepti Bahal Versus State of U.P.).
6. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the papers submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. In this matter, as is clear from the pleading of the parties, applicant is neither the Director nor signatory nor shareholder in M/s. G.I.P.L. As per allegations some amount invested by the investors in the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. was credited in the account of the applicant. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, hearing the parties, going through the entire record, keeping in view the role assigned to the present applicant and also the essential ingredients of the offences levelled in the present matter as well as the orders passed in identical matters in the Bail Applications moved by the applicants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.
7. Let the applicant Ajeet Kumar @ Adesh Bhati involved in the criminal cases, details of which have been given in para no. 2 aforesaid, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii).The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi). The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release from prison and if he has no passport, he shall swear to it on affidavit within the same period and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the court concerned.
8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
04.03.2021.
Sachdeva