Piyush Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Piyush Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2020

This is first application filed under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.355/2020 registered at Police Station Lasudiya, district Indore for the offence punishable under section 420/34 of the IPC. Along with two others viz. Manish and Yogesh, the applicant has been made accused in the aforesaid crime number.

As per prosecution story, complainant Narendra Parikh submitted a written complaint that he and his wife Sunita Parikh have a joint Demat account in Aditya Birla Company from which they are investing their money in the shares of various companies. In the month of February, one Shubham Rajput telephoned him as an employee of Wealth Max Solution Company and gave a proposal for investment of Rs.1.50 lakhs and assured a return of Rs.7.50 lakhs. The complainant gave him Rs.20,000, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.12,500, Rs.13,500/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- & Rs.30,000/- online in the month of March, -2- MCRC No.17246/2020 2019. Thereafter, as per the advice given by the present applicant and others he opened an account in Deal Money Security Company Delhi and deposited Rs.60,000/-. After some time he demanded profit from the applicant and two others but they refused to give the same due to which he suffered huge loss of Rs.4.50 lakhs. A complaint was made on 03.12.2019 but police registered an FIR on 12.03.2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Police is trying to arrest the applicant. The applicant is a qualified Chartered Accountant and having a registration with the National Institute of Security Markets and also having a certificate of registration as investment adviser from the SEBI dated 27.12.2018. He has never assured huge amount of return of profit. He is only an adviser and on his advice the complainant himself has invested the money in the shares of different companies. There is no question of any guarantee of profit as the profit depends on the market fluctuations, hence the applicant is entitled for the protection from arrest. He further submits that after submitting the complaint the complainant himself has entered into a compromise with Yogesh Kumawat and under the said written agreement dated 19.12.2019, Rs.1 lakh has been returned to the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the complaint.

Learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application by submitting that the case is at the investigation stage and the applicant has taken a huge amount from the -3- MCRC No.17246/2020 investors/complainant, hence he is not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail.

I have perused the case diary and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant is a qualified Chartered Accountant and the proprietor of the company. The applicant is also having the registration certificate from the SEBI for doing the business of investment advisory. It is not the case of the complainant that he gave the money to the applicant for investment in different companies but he did not invest the same. The complainant has only alleged that he did not receive the profit as per his expectation. Prima facie, it is not a crime. The applicant is only doing the business of advisory and investing the money in different companies through Demat account.

Considering the overall facts and totality of the circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following conditions:

(a) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any -4- MCRC No.17246/2020 inducment, 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; and

(c) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merit of the case.

C.c as per rules.




                                       (VIVEK RUSIA)
                                            JUDGE
       Digitally signed by Hari Kumar
       Nair
hk/    Date: 2020.06.18 13:30:13
       +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court