Suresh Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Additional ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 27178 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64657
 

 
Court No. 30
 

 
(1)	Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1567 	of 2022
 
	 Applicant :- Suresh Kumar Verma
 
	 Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Additional Chief 		  Secretary Home
 
	 Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Kant Singh
 
	 Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
	Connected with
 
(2) 	Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6757 	of 2022
 
	Applicant :- Balwant Singh
 
	Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
 
	Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh
 
	Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
       Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.

(1) The above-captioned first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been filed by the accused/applicants, Balwant Singh and Suresh Kumar Verma, in the F.I.R. No.08 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

(2) Since the above-captioned bail applications arise out of common factual matrix and common F.I.R, they are being decided by this common order.

(3) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record available before this Court in the above-captioned applications.

(4) As per the prosecution story, complainant-Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary, Proprietor of Om Sai Homes, lodged a complaint at police station Gomti Nagar, district Lucknow against five accused persons, namely, applicants Suresh Kumar, Ghanshyam Verma, Balwant Singh and co-accused Kamlawati Verma, Arvind Kumar Singh, alleging that accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma represented himself that he is the proprietor of the firm, namely, R.S. Associates & Sons, having its office at 2/43, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow and had been awarded the work by the Government of India to install drinking water and sanitation units in 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh under the 'Swatch Bharat Abhiyan' and as such he needs people to execute the said work and as such invited the complainant to his office. According to the complaint, when the complainant went to the office of accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma, he found his son, namely, Ghanshyam Verma (applicant/accused), and two others, namely, Balwant Singh (accused/applicant) and co-accused Arvind Kumar Singh in his office. All these people allured the complainant to believe that the firm of accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma had been awarded the work of installing drinking water and sanitation units in various districts of Uttar Pradesh and in that regard also showed various forged letters issued by the Government of India. The accused persons also told the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs. 14,21,000/- as refundable security deposit for starting the work and after due discussion, the complainant was told to execute and install the drinking water and sanitation units in the district of Sitapur.

(5) As per the complainant, all the accused persons visited along with him to district Sitapur and the accused persons, after supervising various spot, zeroed on specific spot for installation of units and accordingly thereafter the complainant through its firm Om Sai Homes executed an agreement with R.S. Associates & Sons, wherein the complainant was allured to deposit Rs.14,21,000/- as refundable security deposit through RTGS. The complainant, after executing the installation work of units, deposited the Bills of expenses and cost as per the terms of the agreement to R.S Associates & Sons, wherein accused Ghanshyam Verma assured the complainant that the payments shall be made after one week. After one week, when the complainant deposited the entire Bills for an amount of Rs. 83,12,600/- all the accused persons started dilly-dallying the payments. The said act of the accused persons raised suspicion in the mind of the complainant and, thereafter, he came to learn that the accused persons were fraud and no such contract of drinking water and sanitation was ever awarded to the firm R.S Associates & Sons by the Government of India. After that the complainant made several visits to the office of the accused persons but found the same closed and after enquiry, he was told that the office had shifted to 2/33, Vikas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The complainant visited the new office of the accused persons and again met accused Suresh Kumar Verma, his son, accused Ghanshyam Verma, and two other, namely, Balwant Singh (accused/applicant) and Arvind Kumar Singh in his office and on demanding his outstanding amount, accused persons abused him and threatened to face dire consequences, in case the complainant ever came to them to demand his outstanding money.

(6) On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, FIR No. 11 of 2021 dated 07.01.2021 was initially registered under Section 406, 420 IPC, at police station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, however, during the course of investigation, Sections 419, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. has been added. Accused/applicant Balwant Singh in jail since 05.03.2021 and accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma is in jail since 08.01.2021.

(7) As far as the accused/applicant Balwant Singh is concerned, learned Counsel representing him has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He submits that he has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He submits that he has neither cheated nor taken any money from the complainant and have never made any forged documents and as such no offence is made out against him. Applicant Balwant Singh himself to be a victim as he took the work from accused Suresh Kumar Verma for the district Azamgarh by depositing Rs. 33.75 Lakhs as security money vide agreement dated 06.11.2018. According to him, applicant Balwant Singh is not aware of creation of any trust nor he had ever did any signature in the making of the said trust. According to him, there is not a single piece of evidence against him in the present case and when he was languishing in Jail in Case Crime No. 1429/2020, registered under Sections 417/420/467/468/471 IPC, seven more cases came to be lodged against him on the same facts and circumstances. He has submitted that he has been already granted bail in Case Crime No. 1429/2020, Case Crime No. 41/2021 and Case Crime No. 938/2021. He submits that charge-sheet in the case has already been filed under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and the investigation stands completed. He has undertaken to not tamper with any documentary evidence. He has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 05.03.2021 and as such prays to enlarge him on bail.

(8) As far as accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma, is concerned, learned Counsel representing him has submitted that he is innocent and his firm had not given any work order for installation of units, but the complainant without obtaining the work order from the firm and without the clearance of the earlier bills went ahead with construction for which he could not be held responsible. He claims to have paid some amount through cash. According to him, applicant Suresh Kumar Verma admits that he is the founder/president of R.S Foundation trust, which was registered on 01.09.2018 and has its bank account at Delhi and Lucknow and also admits to being the proprietor of M/s R.S Associates and sons. According to him, the work was initiated by the applicant Suresh Kumar Verma in the interest of general public and the same was installed without any work order and without approval of the concerned district or block authority and since the units were installed on own personal choice of the complainant, there was no concern and relation between installation of units in rural areas by the complainant and his firm. He submits that charge-sheet in the case has already been filed under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and the investigation stands completed. He has undertaken to not tamper with any documentary evidence. He has stated that although more than a year has lapsed but the charges are still to be framed against him. According to him, the present issue is a civil dispute and as per the agreement, arbitration proceedings should have been initiated. Applicant Suresh Kumar Verma has no criminal antecedent and is in jail since 08.01.2021 and as such prays to enlarge him on bail.

(9) Learned Counsel representing the accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma has also submitted that he has been already granted Bail in Case Crime No. 1429/2020 and Case Crime No. 41/2021, which has been lodged on identical facts. He has also relied on the judgment of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI : 2012 (1) SCC 40, Takht Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2010) 10 SCC 463 and Kamal Vs State of Haryana :( 2004) 13 SCC 526 and Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. : ( 2018) 3 SCC 22.

(10) Per contra, learned Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicants to enlarge them on bail and has submitted that it was the applicants and co-accused who had committed forgery against the complainant, on account of which, complainant has lost huge amount of money and now he is in great agony on account of forgery committed against him by the accused persons including applicants. He also submitted that accused/applicants, by making forged identity card, represented themselves to be an officials of the Union of India and were involved in various cases of forgery. According to him, accused/applicants are in habit of committing forgery, for which various F.I.Rs. have been lodged against them, therefore, the pleas of the applicants/accused that they are innocent and has no criminal antecedents, are concocted. He also submits that there is every possibility to destroy the evidences and threaten the witnesses by the accused persons if the accused persons be granted bail. Hence, he prays that bail applications are liable to be rejected.

(11) This Court has examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsels for the parties at considerable length and have given anxious thoughts to their rival contentions.

(12) At the outset, it will be beneficial at this stage to recapitulate the principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Apex Court in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. : (2010) 14 SCC 496, after taking into account several precedents, chalked out the following principles for the High court for consideration of bail :-

"9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(i) nature and gravity of the accusation;

(ii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

(iii) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

(iv) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(v) likelihood of the offence being repeated;

(vi) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(vii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail."

(13) As to consideration of various factors while considering an Application for bail, the Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra), went on to note that :

"10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-­application of mind, rendering it to be illegal. In Masroor [(2009) 14 SCC 286 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1368] , a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (D.K. Jain, J.) was a member, observed as follows : (SCC p. 290, para 13)

"13. ... Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided, but there is a need to indicate in such order reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence."

(14) The aforesaid principles have been affirmed and restated in a number of subsequent decisions, including Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr. : ( 2014) 16 SCC 508, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. : (2018) 12 SCC 129 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr : (2020) 2 SCC 118.

(15) Further, the Apex court in the case of Jagjeet Singh V/s Ashish Misha @ Monu & Anr. : (2022) SCC Online SC 453, while appreciating the factum of giving reasoning for grant or otherwise of a bail application, had been pleased to observe, inter-alia:

"Before dealing with the case at hand, we may, at the cost of repetition, emphasise that a Court while deciding an application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage. While a Court may examine prima facie issues, including any reasonable grounds whether the accused committed an offence or the severity of the offence itself, an extensive consideration of merits which has the potential to prejudice either the case of the prosecution or the defence, is undesirable............."

(16) Keeping the aforesaid well settled principle for consideration of a bail application, this Court finds that accused/applicants, besides the present FIR/case in hand is also a named accused in FIR Nos. 08 of 2021, 09 of 2021, 10 of 2021, 11 of 2021, 12 of 2021, 139 of 2021, 625 of 2021 and 938 of 2020 registered at Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, wherein almost identical allegations were made. Besides the aforesaid eight FIRs, there are two other FIR's being (i) FIR No. 41/2021, wherein the accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail and (ii) FIR No. 1429/2020, wherein also the accused persons have been granted anticipatory Bail by the lower Court. Thus, there are altogether about 10 (ten) FIR's which have been lodged against the accused persons.

(17) The record available before this Court reveals that two other FIRs, namely, FIR No. 287/2020, PS: Mundali, district: Meerut and FIR No. 56 of 2021 registered at PS: Cantt, District: Varanasi have also been lodged.

(18) In view of the aforesaid, there are almost 14 FIR's against the accused persons, wherein the modus operandi for duping the complainant have been one and the same. Accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma is the main accused and the proprietor of the firm, namely, M/s S.R Associates & Sons, who has allegedly collected a huge amount of security deposit from the complainant through banking channels. It appears that it was accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma, who had executed agreement with the complainant for installing the drinking water and sanitation units in the district of Uttar Pradesh. Identical agreements have also been executed by accused Suresh Kumar Verma with the complainant of various FIRs. In the said agreement itself, the accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma has given various misrepresentation to the complainant, including having obtained the permission from the Government of India to install drinking and sanitation units under the Jal Shakti Scheme. There is no document on records, which would show that the Government of India has awarded any contract to accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma. Accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma prima facie also appears to be a founder and President of the trust, namely, S.R Foundation, which has been alleged to have been communicating with the Government of India and various forged letters have been shown to have been issued to the said Trust relating to award of the work of installing drinking water and sanitation units in the districts of Uttar Pradesh.

(19) The record available before this Court also reveals that accused/applicant Balwant Singh is the witness in the agreement executed between the complainant and accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma. Although, accused/applicant Balwant Singh took a defence that he himself is a victim as he has also paid certain security deposit to accused Suresh Kumar Verma, which was never returned to him, however at this stage, there is no explanation as to whether he has also lodged an FIR against accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma for his conduct or as to when he was already cheated or why he was also found at the office of accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma and as to why he travelled along with accused Suresh Kumar Verma to different districts for overseeing the installation work. Specific allegation of allurement has been made against accused/applicant Balwant Singh. He is also a Trustee of the Trust S.R Foundation, which has alleged to have been communicating with the Government of India for the contract and the same eventually was never awarded. Similarly, accused Ghanshyam Verma although not a signatory of the said agreement, however, he is also a trustee of the fraudulent Trust, namely, S.R foundation. Accused Ghanshyam Verma is the son of accused/applicant Suresh Kumar Verma and specific allegation has been made against him relating to his presence in the office and inducement.

(20) Apparently, the fraud allegedly committed by the accused persons against the complainant are running into crores. They have manipulated government documents to allure and induce contractors, who have trusted them for the work order and eventually, when the work was executed by them, it turned out that the entire transaction was fraudulent. The allegations and accusation against the accused/applicants are grave and serious in nature.

(21) It is relevant to add here that time and again, the Apex Court has held that economic offences needed to be viewed seriously and considered as "grave offences". An economic offence involves deep rooted conspiracy and should be viewed seriously and be considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

(22) Apparently, the applicants/accused prima facie appears to be person with deep pockets. If they could manipulate government documents and dupe gullible contractors to invest in the made-up project of installation of drinking water and sanitation units, it cannot be ruled out at this stage that they may also not be able to influence these investors, other witnesses and the evidence to save their own skin. The Apex court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held that :-

"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 

(23) In the considered view of this Court, the present case is not just relating to the applicants having duped the complainant of a huge sum of money, but it prima facie also involves allegations of forging Government documents to gain confidence of the complainant, which is an economic offence involving loss to the public exchequer. Such offences need to be viewed seriously as the same pose a threat to the economy of the country. Further, the present case involves offence under Section 467 of the IPC read with Section 471 of the IPC, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life.

(24) In the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to accused/applicants, (i) Suresh Kumar Verma, and (ii) Balwant Singh at this stage.

(25) The bail applications are, accordingly, rejected.

(26) However, considering the facts that the trial of the case is stated to have been commenced and the case has been fixed by the trial Court for framing of charges, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude it, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(27) It is clarified that the accused persons shall not take any unnecessary adjournment and co-operate in completing the trial expeditiously. It is also clarified that observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the above-captioned bail applications and it shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

( Om Prakash Shukla, J. )

Order Date :- 5.10.2023

Ajit/-