Dinesh Pandey vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6155 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

							  Reserved on 08.6.2021
 
							  Delivered on 11.6.2021
 

 
1.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15691 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Varad Nath
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
2.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15738 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
3.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15740 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
4.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15742 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
5.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15745 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
6.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15747 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
7.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15750 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
8.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15796 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Varad Nath
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
9.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15797 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Varad Nath,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
10.  Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15851 of 2021
 
Applicant :- Dinesh Pandey
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Varad Nath
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Since all the aforementioned bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant Dinesh Pandey and arise out of similar nature of cases, they have been heard together and are being decided of by a common order.

For the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15691 of 2021 is being treated as leading case.

Heard Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, Varad Nath, Vivek Jain and Chirag Naik, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing.

It was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that in this matter applicant is in jail since 21.11.2020. Charge sheet has been filed on 15.2.2021. Applicant has no concern with the present matter. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant referred to contents of F.I.R. as well as statement of prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation and further submitted that a Scheme in the name of 'Bike Boat' was launched by the Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (in short 'GIPL'). Applicant has no connection with the aforesaid company. Neither the applicant is Director, Manager. shareholder nor the Office Bearer in the aforesaid company. Prosecution has not collected any evidence till today to show that the applicant, in any manner, was in agreement with the aforesaid company and other associated companies and its Directors regarding the Scheme launched by it. Applicant is a reputed businessman and is engaged in the business of real estate, shipping and e-commerce. Amount said to have been credited in the account of applicant's Companies was credited by GIPL and its sister Companies for flats. Whatever amount was credited in the account of applicant's company, out of them some amount has been returned and there remains only about eighty four crores in the hands of company which was in lieu of flats allotment, as submitted here-in-above. It was next contended that neither the applicant induced any of the investors to invest the amount in the said scheme nor was involved in publicity of the said scheme. Referring to aforesaid facts and evidence of the present matter and ingredients of offence under Sections 406, 420 and 409 IPC it was further submitted that whatever amount was paid by the investors to the GIPL and its sister companies was paid to GIPL and its sister companies, no amount was deposited in the account of applicant's companies nor applicant has collected any amount from any investors at any point of time. Thus, referring to aforesaid facts it was next contended that applicant is totally unconnected with the present matter. He has been implicated in this case only on the basis that certain amount was credited by the GIPL and its sister companies in the account of applicant's companies. It was next contended that amount said to have been credited in the account of applicant's companies does not attract essential ingredients of present crime and same were credited in lieu of oral agreement entered into between the GIPL and its sister companies and the applicant's companies. Process of allotment of flats has also been made at the end of applicant's company. To substantiate this argument, learned Senior Counsel referred to the documents with the bail applications and rejoinder affidavits and further submitted that applicant cannot be prosecuted for the offences levelled in the matter, as neither he is named in the F.I.R. nor there is any direct evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. Applicant is also suffering from serious diseases and an application in this regard had also been moved before the Court below and applicant was sent to local hospital for treatment. Since charge sheet has been filed, entire evidence has been collected, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bar. It was lastly submitted that in the identical situation co-accused Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8605 of 2020 and Satinder Singh Bhasin vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 have been released on bail. Hence, present applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that though the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. yet huge amount invested by the investors in the Bike Boat Scheme with the GIPL was diverted in the account of applicant's company. Referring to bail applications, counter and rejoinder affidavits it was further submitted that if plea of the applicant is taken into consideration then also he has not filed any written agreement entered into between the parties to substantiate the said plea. So far as the plea taken by the applicant that GIPL and its sister companies deposited certain amount in the account of applicant's companies for purchase of flats is concerned, there must have been some written agreement in this regard as the agreement said to have been made between the parties is related to immovable property. Learned Additional Advocate General also referred to counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits and further submitted that huge amount has been diverted during intervening period from the GIPL and its sister companies in the applicant's companies when investors have deposited the amount with the GIPL in the Bike Boat Scheme. It was next contended that more than two lakhs investors have invested amount in Bike Boat Scheme on inducement of Directors, Office Bearers, Managers of GIPL but these companies did not return the assured profit to them and they are waiting for their money till today. Number of F.I.R.s have been lodged against the applicant and other co-accused in different States. Amount credited in the account of applicant's company was the amount belonging to the Bike Boat Scheme and same was deposited in the account of applicant's company in connivance with the applicant. Enforcement Directorate has also initiated proceeding against the applicant and its company. Immovable property as well the account of applicant's company has been attached by the Enforcement Directorate. It was next contended that applicant is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity as bail application of co-accused Satinder Singh Bhasin was allowed on the ground that there was agreement between GIPL and his company on the basis of written agreement entered into between them. Similarly, Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati was allowed on bail on the ground that he invested amount in the Bike Boat Scheme himself and was sufferer. Since there is no written agreement, purpose of depositing the huge amount in the account of applicant's company is not clear, number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out against the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the following case laws:

1. Masroor Versus 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.).

10. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 SCC 622.

11. State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha and others, (2017) 6 SCC 263.

12. Ramesh Chandra Nand Lal Parikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, (2006) 1 SCC 732.

13. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, (2013) 1 SCC 1.

In rejoinder, Shri Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant rebutting the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General argued that if there was any ill will on the part of applicant regarding the money transaction took place between the GIPL and its sister companies and between the applicant's companies, he would not have received the amount through banking transaction / net banking. Details of flats said to be purchased by the GIPL and its sister companies have also been made clear. Role assigned to the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati and Satinder Singh Bhasin. Nothing is on record to connect the applicant with the present matter taking recourse the provisions of Section 120-B IPC. Nothing is recovered from the possession of the applicant to connect him with Bike Boat Scheme. Prosecution witnesses interrogated at belated stage are procured witnesses only with a view to connect the applicant with the present matter falsely.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the case laws cited in the matter carefully.

Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that an application under Section 156(3) CrPC dated 3.7.2019 was filed by the informant / complainant (Swati Dhamija d/o of Madan Lal Dhamija, resident of 7-C, Surya Appartments, Rohini, Sector 13, Nort West Delhi / Flat No. 905, Tower No.2, Lotus Jing Sector 168, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd, Gautam Budh Nagar with the averments that she came across an advertisement in the Newspaper in the year 2018 published by Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited calling for investment of Rs. 62,100/- from public against which one bike was to be given in the investor's name in the pattern of business of Ola and Uber Cabs and from the said business module investor was to earn Rs. 9,765/- per month for each bike till a fixed period of 12 months. On the basis of said advertisement, complainant visited the office of GIPL at Katgaon, Dadri and after gathering information about the Company, its Directors, namely, Sanjay Bhati, Deepti Bhati, Sachin Bhati, Vijay Kasna, Rajesh Bhardwaj and Karanpal Singh and the Scheme, invested Rs. 31,67,100/- for 51 bikes in her name and in the name of Swansh Foundation. It is further averrred that after the said investment for aforesaid bikes, only an amount of Rs. 11,00,000/- was paid by the Company to the complainant. On follow-up with the said Directors of the Company, two cheques bearing No. 654782 dated 30.11.2019 for a sum of Rs. 36,15,810/- and bearing no. 727250 dated 23.9.2019 for a sum of Rs. 4,47,205/-, to be drawn on Noble Cooperative Bank Limited, NOIDA Branch, were issued in favour of complainant but on enquiry with the said Bank it was disclosed that said Bank had not issued any cheque bearing aforesaid numbers. Faced with this situation, when the complainant contacted the Directors of the said Company, they abused and assaulted her and extended threat of death. Similar nature of F.I.R.s have also been lodged by different investors in the aforesaid bail applications.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. Neither he is the Director, Office Bearer and Manager of the GIPL and its sister companies nor there is any evidence to show that the the applicant at any point of time induced or propagate to invest money in the Bike Boat Scheme launched by the GIPL. Entire money transaction took place between the GIPL and its sister companies and the applicant's company are banking transaction. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the ingredients of offence under Sections 406, 420 and 409 IPC, the orders granting bail to co-accused Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati and Satinder Singh Bhasin and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicant Dinesh Pandey involved in Case Crime No. 369 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15691 of 2019, Case Crime No. 440 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15738 of 2021, Case Crime No. 361 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15740 of 2021, Case Crime No. 586 of 2019 under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15742 of 2021, Case Crime No. 389 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15745 of 2021, Case Crime No. 386 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15747 of 2021, Case Crime No. 809 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15750 of 2021, Case Crime No. 510 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15796 of 2021, Case Crime No. 368 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15797 of 2021, Case Crime No. 866 of 2019, under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC,Section 58-B (4A) of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and Section 58-A of Companies Act, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15851 of 2021 be released on bail on furnishing each 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 :

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release 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.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court / Authority / Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 11.06.2021

safi