Satinder Singh Bhasin vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3128 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

        			       Judgment Reserved On : 23.02.2021
 
			       Judgment Delivered On:  04.03.2021
 

 
1. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4012 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkar Mehrotra,Swetashwa Agarwal
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8209 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Satinder Singh Bhasin @ Montu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Pushkar Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.

Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State.

The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Satinder Singh Bhasin in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below :

1. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 in case crime no. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.

2. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 in case crime no. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is not named in the first information report. He was not the Director of the Company concerned and is not related in any way with M/s. Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (in short "G.I.P.L."). Applicant never motivated any person to invest money in the Bike Boat Scheme. Motor cycle said to have been recovered in the matter could also not be connected with the applicant. F.I.R. is said to be lodged on 09.03.2019, applicant was arrested in this matter on 15.02.2020. Nothing was mentioned in the FIR to attract the offences levelled in the matter against the applicant. Applicant is one of the Director of Bhasin Infotech & Infrastructure Private Limited which is sister concern of Vinaamr Infrastructure Private Limited. Both the companies are duly incorporated companies under the Companies Act. One scheme had been launched by the aforesaid companies in the name of Grand Venezia Shopping Mall and Commercial Tower and for which a separate company was incorporated in the name of Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited, a duly registered company. Since G.I.P.L. and Independent T. V. Limited had applied for allotment of the land (commercial space) in the aforesaid scheme, the same was accepted and allotment was made in favour of the aforesaid companies after receiving the consideration amount from them as both the companies M/s. G.I.P.L. and Independent T. V. Limited had accepted the terms and conditions enumerated in the lease deed. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant at this juncture referred to para 33, 34 and 35 of the bail application moved in Crime No. 353 of 2019 and further argued that payment made by the companies concerned regarding the allotment were bank transactions. No advance amount was taken by the applicant. It is a no evidence case against the applicant as applicant is not connected with the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. If entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also applicant allotted the commercial office space in Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited to the G.I.P.L. and its sister concern as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed and same cannot be treated that the applicant was also involved in the money laundering done by M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern. None of the ingredients of the offences levelled in the matter are attracted against the applicant. Amount shown to be credited in the account of the applicant by the investigating agency is also false and is based on wrong calculation. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the counter and rejoinder affidavits annexed with the application and further argued that Investigating Officer has taken into consideration those amount which was returned to M/s. G.I.P.L. M/s. G.I.P.L. has taken the possession of said commercial space and has plans to launch office therein. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the facts of the present case as well as ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 and 409 IPC and further argued that there is no cheating on the part of the applicant with the investors of the G.I.P.L. Applicant is totally unconnected with this matter. Referring to the entire documents annexed with the application it is also argued that there are two aspect of the present matter. First with regard to the investment made by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme launched by the G.I.P.L. and second, money said to have been paid by the G.I.P.L. to the informant's company. It is further argued that there is no evidence against the applicant to show that the applicant was involved in motivating the investors to invest the money in the Bike Boat Scheme. All the evidence collected during investigation to this extent were collected after due consultation and after thought to falsely implicate the applicant in the present matter. Referring to the facts of the present matter it is also argued that if entire prosecution case is taken into consideration then also applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter for the amount credited by M/s. G.I.P.L. in the account of schemes launched by the applicant company. Referring to the statement of the witnesses recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer it is further argued that they are pocket witnesses and were procured through investigation to connect the applicant with the present matter. Arrest of the applicant is illegal. Company to which applicant belongs has not been made accused, therefore, on this ground also the present prosecution cannot continue against the applicant. Applicant has co-operated with the investigating agency during investigation. Thus, there was no occasion to arrest the applicant in the present matter as it is a no evidence case. Thus, referring to the aforesaid facts as well as documents annexed with the application, counter and rejoinder affidavits, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws :

1. Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

2. Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U. P. and another, (2108) 3 SCC 22.

3. Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.

4. Sushil Sethi and another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, (2020) 3 SCC 240.

5. P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2019 SC 5272.

It is further argued that statement made by of the co-accused in the matter cannot be read against the present applicant as same is barred by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also argued that investors belonging to the scheme launched by the applicant company had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applicant was enlarged on bail in all the FIRs lodged agianst him with certain directions. Present matter is also of the same nature and the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in this matter also.

Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that amount said to have been paid by M/s. G.I.P.L. to the applicant's company/scheme was paid in the month of April, 2018 itself. Prayer for allotment was made through the application moved in the month of December, 2018. Thus, it clearly shows that amount deposited by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme was diverted to the applicant's companies prior to the moving of the application for allotment of the land. Referring to the application moved on behalf of M/s. G.I.P.L. for allotment of the land it was further argued that person who had applied for allotment has not signed the application nor any stamp was affixed thereon. It was further argued that two contradictory views have been taken by the applicant. Criminal Writ filed by the applicant is also pending before the Court in which applicant has annexed the statement of the accused Sanjay Bhati in which he has admitted that M/s. G.I.P.L. has invested Rs. 150 crores in the applicant's company. Thus, there is ample material on record which shows that the present applicant is not entitled for bail. It was next contended that there is no necessity to array the company as an accused as act said to have been committed by the applicant was done to defraud the investors of Bike Boat Scheme. There is sufficient incriminating material against the applicant in the case diary itself. Witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer have supported the prosecution case. Referring to the details of the accounts maintained by the applicant company and M/s. G.I.P.L. annexed with the application it was further argued that huge amount belonging to the investors of Bike Boat Scheme has been diverted in the companies of the applicant. There is no written agreement between the two companies to invest the amount in the company of the applicant. Thus, this fact reveal that transactions were only for defrauding the investors of the Bike Boat Scheme.

It was further argued that bail granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter initiated by the investors of the scheme launched by the applicant's company will not be a ground to release the applicant in the present matter as facts of the present matter are entirely different from the facts of the FIR challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since huge amount of the investors has been diverted by M/s. G.I.P.L. in the scheme of the applicant, therefore, involvement of the applicant in the present matter is clear and apparent from the evidence and a prima facie case is made out against him. More than 2.5 lakhs investors who invested around 3500 crores are waiting for return of their money invested in the Bike Boat Scheme.

Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following case laws :

1. Masroor Vesus 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.

I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the papers submitted by the learned counsel for the parties.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is not the Director, signatory or shareholder in M/s. G.I.P.L. Although allegation against the applicant is that investors' amount of the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. was diverted to the applicant's company and application said to have been moved by the applicant's company does not bear the signature of the person moving it and said person had resigned from the post of Director prior to the date of moving the application yet commercial space has been allotted in the scheme launched by the applicant in favour of M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern and possession over the commercial space has also been taken. The said allotted land is reported to be attached by the Enforcement Directorate in the proceedings started against main accused but accounts of the applicant's company have not been attached. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the applicant to connect him with the present matter, comparing the same with the ingredients of the offences levelled against him in the FIRs in the present matters 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 it is a fit case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.

Let the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4012 of 2021 and the applicant Satinder Singh Bhasin @ Montu involved in Case Crime No. 353 of 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8209 of 2021 be released on bail on furnishing 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 from prison 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.

04.03.2021.

Sachdeva