Jharkhand High Court
Md. Mokarram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 April, 2018
Author: Anant Bijay Singh
Bench: Anant Bijay Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 1092 of 2016
Md. Mokarram ..... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. CBI, Jharkhand ..... Opp. Parties
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT BIJAY SINGH
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate.
For the CBI : J.C. to Rajiv Sinha, ASGI.
---------
Reserved on : 05/04/2018 Pronounced on : 12/04/2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the CBI.
Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Borio P.S. Case No. 147 of 2013, corresponding to G.R. No. 377 of 2013, registered under Sections 420, 120B of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 of the Prize Cheats and Money Circulation Act, 1978, pending in the court of A. Verma, Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.
The case of prosecution, in short, is that the instant case has been lodged on the basis of written report dated 20.05.2013 of the informant - Binay Shankar Dubey, Block Panhayat Raj Officer, Borio Block addressed to the Officer- in-Charge, Borio P.S. alleging that on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj and Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj under the leadership of S.D.M., Sahibganj, a team was constituted to investigate the affairs of non-banking financial institutions, which were functioning in the district of Sahibganj and they searched the premises of Sun-shine Agro Ltd., in which Md. Mokarram (petitioner), is the Managing Director. No papers on demand was produced by the aforesaid Company, so it alleged that huge amount of money has been collected from the consumers and complaints have been received them. On the basis of aforesaid allegation, the instant case has been instituted.
Anticipatory bail application was filed on 30.06.2016 and on 25.07.2016, learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to add CBI as opposite party no. 2 and to serve a copy of memo of anticipatory bail application on learned Standing Counsel for the CBI and case diary was called for.
-2-It appears that the matter was adjourned from time to time and finally, on 24.07.2017, submission was made that case has been transferred to CBI.
Case diary has been received.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while pressing the bail application submitted that Sun-Shine Agro Ltd. is a company incorporated under Company Act, 1956 having its registered office at D-30, Madhuban Road, 3 rd Floor, Shakrpur Extension, New Delhi and the aforesaid company has filed a petition being Company Application (M) No. 24/2015 before the Court of High Court of Delhi praying for a direction that the said company along with Sun-Shine Global Education Ltd. (New Delhi), be amalgamated with a private limited Company, namely, L.M. Techno-Build Private Limited, having its registered office at D-30, Madhuban Road, 3rd Floor, Shakrpur Extension, New Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court under order dated 17.11.2015 permitted to convene the meeting of unsecured creditors on 08.01.2016 at 2:30 PM at Saubhagya Banqet Hall, C-65, First Floor, Preet Vihar, Metro Pillar No. 77, Vikash Marg, Delhi-110092 and company was permitted to publish the requisite notice of the said meeting on the said date in the Delhi, Bihar and West Bengal editions. It was further submitted that the matter was sub-judice before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is further submitted that petitioner's company has not done work of money circulation and has never collected any money from investors. So, the petitioner deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the CBI has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and referred paragraph nos. 21, 22, 23, 27 and 28 of the case diary and submitted that the witnesses have fully supported the allegations against the petitioner.
From perusal of para-21, it transpires that witness Kuldev Thakur had deposited money @ Rs. 20/- per day for a period of one year, but he subsequently came to know the company has closed the office and fled away. Similar -3- allegations have been made by other witnesses namely Ravikant Pandit in para-22, Gunjesh Kumar in para-23, Amit Kumar in para-27 and Mathura Yadav in para-28.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the Sun- shine Agro Ltd. Company has collected huge amount of money from the consumers and the consumers have lodged complaint against the company and the petitioner is the Managing Director of the said Company, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory is hereby rejected.
(Anant Bijay Singh, J.) Sunil/