Allahabad High Court
Ashish Rai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 28 March, 2023
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2799 of 2023 Applicant :- Ashish Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Digvijai Singh,Ravi Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Romit Seth Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Ravi Singh assisted by Shri Divijai Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. and Shri Romit Seth, learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
2. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 160 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 170, 120-B IPC and Section 7(a)/8(1)(i) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Hazratganj, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
3. Facts, as per the prosecution case, are that in the month of April, 2018, co-accused Vaibhav Shukla resident of Indore along with one Santosh Sharma, met with the complainant, who is also the resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh and enquired about the turn over of his Flour Mill. As Vaibhav Shukla was the friend of the younger brother of the complainant, he told him about the turn over of his Mill. Thereafter, they went to the office of the complainant and took the profile of the Company of the complainant and the returns of some previous years and told the complainant that he and Santosh Sharma had met Sri S.K. Mittal, Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry at Lucknow, who told them that he was very close to the Minister of the department. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that Vaibhav Shukla told the complainant that Sri S.K. Mittal told him that he wanted to give supply order to the complainant for wheat, sugar, flour and pulses in the party's interest. The complainant was further told that he would have to pay 3% in advance of the total value of the supply order and supply order would be for Rs.292.14 crores. The supply would be required to be completed within a period of one year. He further said that on getting the work order for supply, 60% of the profit would go to the complainant and 40% would go to Santosh Sharma's Company.
It is also alleged therein that the complainant believed on Santosh Sharma and Vaibhav Shukla and gave them turn over as well as profile of his Company. Thereafter, Santosh Sharma and Vaibhav Shukla came to the office of the complainant along with a tender form, which was allegedly issued by the department of Animal Husbandry, Government of Uttar Pradesh and asked the complainant and his wife to put their signatures on the said tender form, on which, the complainant and his wife signed. Santosh Sharma also informed them that several tenders would be submitted by many persons and after comparing the rates of other tenderers, Sri S.K. Mittal would fill the rate in the tender of the complainant, so that the complainant should get the contract for supply. Further allegation made in the F.I.R. is that Santosh Sharma asked the complainant to keep 3% of the tender value ready to be paid as advance and asked him to pay 1% forthwith, on which, the complainant paid Rs.50 Lakhs on 03.05.2018, Rs.50 Lakhs on 18.06.2018 and Rs.50 Lakhs on 07.07.2018, which was allegedly given by them to Sri S.K. Mittal. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.2 Crores on 27.07.2018 to Vaibhav Shukla, which was allegedly given by them to co-accused Amit Mishra on 27.07.2018 on asking of said Sri S.K. Mittal. Vaibhav Shukla also informed the complainant that tender had been allotted in favour of the complainant and asked him to reach Lucknow immediately because Sri S.K. Mittal wanted to meet the complainant and he would like the complainant to meet the Minister as well.
4. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 31.08.2018, the complainant came to Lucknow and along with Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma reached VVIP Guest House at Lucknow. Thereafter, by hiring a taxi, they reached at Gate No. 9 of the Vidhan Sabha as was told by Sri S.K. Mittal. One peon present at the Gate, got the pass issued for them at Gate No. 9. He took them inside the Secretariat and guided them to a big room where on the table, nameplate of Sri S.K. Mittal was displayed. The person sitting on the chair introduced himself as S.K. Mittal and asked the peon to bring the receiving register and the work order, on which, the said peon brought one work order and the register. The complainant was asked to sign on the receiving register and the work order was issued in his favour. The said S.K. Mittal asked the complainant to pay the remaining amount of 3% as he agreed with Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma. After completing the formalities, the complainant, Santosh Sharma, Vaibhav Shukla and said S.K. Mittal went for tea outside in a Coffee Shop. The complainant asked the said S.K. Mittal that the time period of the work order was very short as the work order was given to the complainant on 31.08.2018, but the date on the work order was mentioned as 12.06.2018. The complainant also told S.K. Mittal that to make such a big supply, he would require to take loan from the Bank and because of the festivals, there was shortage of labour etc., on which, said S.K. Mittal assured the complainant that everything was in his hands and, he would keep on extending the time limit by imposing minimum fine. He also told the complainant that since on the said date, i.e., 31.08.2018, there was a cabinet meeting, therefore, meeting with the Minister was not possible, otherwise he would have ensured his meeting with the Minister as well. He told the complainant that the Minister was very happy with him because the complainant had fulfilled his commitment and asked the complainant to send the remaining amount soon. Thereafter, said S.K. Mittal left the coffee shop and went in a Safari car.
5. After this meeting, the complainant got assured about the genuineness of the transaction and, thereafter, he paid Rs.5.5. Crores in a few instalments to the said S.K. Mittal through Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma. After a few days, Santosh Sharma telephoned the complainant and told that for effecting such a big supply, a go-down would be required and for this purpose Mr. Mittal told him to take a go-down from R.K. Traders, U.P. on rent. The complainant was asked to deposit Rs.72 Lakhs in the account of R.K. Traders. The complainant deposited Rs.66,000/- on 25.09.2018, Rs.21.46 lakhs on 06.10.2018 and, Rs.50 Lakhs on 16.10.2018 in the account of R.K. Traders through RTGS, as was asked by Santosh Sharma.
6. As per prosecution case, the total amount allegedly paid to said S.K. Mittal was Rs.9,72,12,000/- The complainant checked his tender online, but it was not found anywhere, then he contacted Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma over the phone and told them that his tender was not being shown. He also asked the date for starting the supply and he should be immediately informed about all these. Both Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma told the complainant that they would meet said S.K. Mittal and then would inform him accordingly regarding the real status. Thereafter, the complainant was told by Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma that some complaints had been received in respect of tendering process and CBCID was conducting an enquiry. After some days, Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma came to Indore and met the complainant and told him that tender process was being enquired by S.K. Mittal himself and he would be required to go to the office of the CBCID, Lucknow on 22.11.2018. It was said that S.K. Mittal would manage everything and, there was nothing which should bother the complainant.
7. The complainant on 22.11.2018 reached to the office of the CBCID, Lucknow where he was asked to make his entry in the register and one Constable took him to the Superintendent of Police in the office of CBCID. The Superintendent of Police asked him whether the work order was given to the complainant and whether he had made supply. When the complainant told the Superintendent of Police that he has not made any supply, then the Superintendent of Police scolded him badly and said that he had made the supply. Thereafter, he dictated something to the complainant and asked him to put his signatures on the paper and kept the paper with him. The complainant came out of the office of the CBCID, where the said S.K. Mittal was waiting for him. He asked the complainant whether verification was done. The complainant nodded his head and told him that Superintendent of Police had told him that supply had been made and he dictated regarding this and made the complainant to sign it and the said paper had been kept by the Superintendent of Police. S.K. Mittal asked the complainant to go to Indore and he would tell everything to Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma. The complainant came back to Indore on the same day.
8. Thereafter, on 26.12.2018, the complainant again met the said S.K. Mittal with Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma and requested him to issue order for making supply immediately, on which, the said S.K. Mittal asked him to give original copy of the order, bill book, which was without any date and the affidavit of supply to be signed by both the partners and thereafter, only order would be issued for making supply. When the complainant objected to do this, S.K. Mittal told him that it was his responsibility to look after everything and the complainant should not be worried about anything. Thereafter, Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Shamra came to Indore and met the complainant and told him that the said S.K. Mittal had asked them to bring the original order, number of all the vehicles from which supply would be made, name of the drivers with details of bills and the bills should be without date, as S.K. Mittal would fill the date as per the requirement. The complainant sent the original work order, affidavit of supply, bills of vouchers, empty bill book through his employee, Lavendra with Santosh Sharma to Lucknow. These persons met S.K. Mittal on 11.01.2019 and the said S.K. Mittal kept the affidavit and bill vouchers with him and sent Lavendra and Santosh Sharma with original work order to the office of the CBCID to meet Superintendent of Police, who turned out to be co-accused Arvind Sen, a police officer of D.I.G. rank. The said Superintendent of Police kept the original work order with him and sent these persons and told them that after completing the enquiry, he would call the complainant on the next date.
Since the complainant had paid Rs.9,72,12,000/- therefore, the complainant was pressing for making supply and contacted many times Santosh Sharma and Vaibhav Shukla and the said S.K. Mittal. The said S.K. Mittal asked them to come to Lucknow on 30.03.2019. The complainant with Santosh Sharma and Vaibhav Shukla and his employee, Lavendra reached Lucknow on 30.03.2019 and stayed in Oyo rooms behind Piccadilly Hotel and they kept on contacting S.K. Mittal over the telephone. S.K. Mittal kept on assuring Santosh Shamra for two days that he would make payment through RTGS. On 31.3.2019, when the said S.K. Mittal was again contacted, he asked them to reach in front of Phoenix Mall. Thereafter, the complainant, Vaibhav Shukla, Santosh Sharma and one Rakesh Porwal, friend of Santosh Sharma reached in front of the Phoenix Mall. As soon as they reached at Phoenix Mall, police came there and forcibly made them to sit in the police vehicles. The complainant was threatened that if he would speak, he would be shot dead and the police took them to the Police Station Naka Hindola and they were brought before the Police Inspector, who also threatened them. Their I.D. proofs were taken and the complainant was threatened that if he would be seen again in Lucknow, he would be killed in an encounter. Thereafter, these persons were allowed to go. It was said that the complainant along with his employee, Lavendra came back to Indore on the same day by catching a flight to Indore.
9. Further allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the person, who met with the complainant as S.K. Mittal, was the accused Ashish Rai (applicant). After this, the complainant belief got confirmed that he had been cheated and duped in a big way in furtherance of a huge conspiracy and thereafter he made a complaint alleging that he had been cheated of Rs.9,72,12,000/- in a criminal conspiracy hatched by applicnat-Ashish Rai, Monte Gurjar r/o Jaipur, Rajasthan, Rupak Rai r/o Azamgarh, Santosh Mishra, Journalist r/o Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, A.K. Rajeev, Journalist r/o Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, Amit Mishra r/o Faridabad, permanent r/o Amethi, Uma Shanker Tiwari r/o Kanpur Nagar, Rajneesh Dixit r/o Lucknow, D.B. Singh r/o Lucknow, Arun Rai, Editor of News Channel 18, Dheeraj Kumar, Private Secretary to the Minister, Animal Husbandry, Umesh Mishra and other officers/employees. It is also alleged that they had prepared forged and fabricated documents, on the basis of which, they had cheated the complainant of Rs.9,72,12,000/-.
On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. No.160 of 2020 (supra) came to be registered.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case and there is no evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no possibility of tampering of any evidence. It is vehemently submitted that co-accused, having identical role, has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.02.2023 passed in Bail Application No. 4109 of 2021 (annexed as Annexure 12 to the supplementary affidavit) and, therefore, the case of the applicant is also liable to be considered. It is lastly submitted that the trial is not going on and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 15.06.2020. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the investigation.
11. Shri V.K. Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the applicant claimed himself as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry. It has further been submitted that the alleged crime was committed in the premises of Civil Secretariat, Government of U.P. with the association of Dhiraj Kumar, Personal Assistant of Hon'ble Minister, Animal Husbandry, Umesh Mishra and other officials along with one I.P.S. Officer, namely, Arvind Sen. It has also been submitted that their visuals were also found in the CCTV footage. The call detail report is also collected by the S.T.F. It has, thus, been submitted that the applicant is not entitled for bail.
12. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.A.G., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of F.I.R., bail application, supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit along with case diary as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the applicant, by posing himself as Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry along with the Deputy Director General of Police and other co-accused, who are the Government officials working on key posts, had executed the crime. During the course of investigation, it has been found that the applicant, who is one of the main accused, was actively involved in the commission of offence. Further, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled for parity with the co-accused, who has already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground of period of confinement, has no force looking to the gravity of offence of the present case.
13. In view of above, no case for bail is made out. The application, accordingly, stands rejected.
The trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
14. Bench Secretary is directed to return the photocopy of the case diary to the learned A.G.A.
March 28, 2023 VKS