Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Champaklal Kanungo And 4 ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 February, 2021
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 25.01.2021
Delivered On:- 03.02.2021
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 762 of 2021
Applicant :- Jitendra Champaklal Kanungo And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Aishwarya Pratap Singh, Anurag Khanna (Senior Adv.)
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth, J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Aishwarya Pratap Singh, learned counsels for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
2. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Jitendra Champaklal Kanungo, Aneesh Ahmad Abdul Rasheed Siddiqui, Vinisha Mahendra Jain, Nitin Shanti Lal Jain and Kamlesh Manohar Kanungo, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 5984 of 2018, Case Crime No. 22 of 2018, under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station- Fazalganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of trial.
3. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that FIR was lodged by the informant-opposite party no. 3, being Manager of M/s Rim Jhim Spark Ltd., Fazalganj, Kanpur Nagar, alleging that the company of informant had business relationship with M/s Sikkim Fero Alloys Ltd., Mumbai and the applicants are its Directors. On 25.12.2017 an agreement for supply of 300 metric tones of s.s. wire rod was entered between the company of the informant and the applicants and a cheque of no. 151845, dated 02.02.2018 of Rs. 2 crores was given as security on the condition that if the money for the goods supplied is not paid within 30 days by way of RTGS, the aforesaid cheque would be en-cashed by informant. As per the agreement the goods were supplied but the applicants committed default in the payment hence the aforesaid cheque was presented before the bank for encashment. However, it was dishonoured on 21.02.2018 on the ground that the signature of the signatory of the cheque differs from his specimen signature in the bank. There is allegation that the applicants have deliberately given a defective cheque and have cheated the informant. Thereafter the applicants were contacted on phone but they did not made the payments and hence the FIR has been lodged.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that there is long business relationship between the company of the applicants and the company of the informant. The allegations in the FIR are not correct. The company of the applicant has instituted a summary suit claiming an amount of Rs. 2,22,04,695.23/- against the defendants as their business dues on 04.05.2018 before Mumbai High Court. He has further submitted that the signatory to the cheque was Sri R.M Kanungo on behalf of company of the applicants, whose signature allegedly differs from his specimen signature on the cheque in dispute. He has not been implicated as an accused by the informant. While submitting the charge sheet the Investigating Officer has not recorded statement of the cashier of Yes Bank who allegedly dishonoured the cheque in dispute. The Investigating Officer has not gathered any expert evidence regarding the signature of the signatory of cheque and his specimen signature before the bank. He has submitted that the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet in most cavalier manner. The applicants have already preferred two applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this court.
5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and has submitted that the summary suit instituted before Mumbai High Court by the applicants is by way of counterblast and this has also been stated in the written statement filed by informant before the High Court. He has further submitted that the charge sheet has been submitted against the applicants which has been challenged but not been stayed in Applications u/s 483 Cr.P.C filed by the applicants. They have not brought on record any order passed in the aforesaid applications and have only brought on record the status report which shows that the aforesaid applications are pending.
6. After hearing counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A that this court feels that applicants have approached this Court after submission o charge sheet against them relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and judgment of this Court of Adil Vs. State of U.P., Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S No.438 Cr.P.C. No.8285 of 2020. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that from the material collected by the Investigating Officer, no offence is made out against the applicants hence they are entitled to be enlarged on bail till conclusion of trial.
7. After considering the material collected by the Investigating officer in support of charge sheet, this Court finds that the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants is not correct. The material collected by the Investigating Officer makes out the offences regarding which the applicants have been charge sheeted.
8. No ground for granting anticipatory bail has been made out by the applicants.
9. The anticipatory bail application is rejected.
Order date:- 03.02.2021
Rohit
