Allahabad High Court
Sonu Pradhan vs State Of U.P. on 6 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32427
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 1889 of 2025
Applicant :- Sonu Pradhan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imran Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 401 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(5), 61(2) BNS & Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, Police Station- Sector 63, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar.
3. The prosecution story is that the applicant/accused along with other persons formed a trading company, namely, Kalpvriksha Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and after establishing the said company, applicant and other members duped innocent persons to invest their money in the company and told them that in return, they would receive huge amount. Thereafter, they used to close down the said company and after changing the place, they opened another company with a different name at a different place. On this modus operandi, they cheated huge amount from their investors. The mastermind of the company, namely, Vinod Kumar Dhama was arrested and during his interrogation, name of the applicant surfaced in the present case. Accused, Vinod Kumar Dhama has stated that they have purchased automated machine Bot Master and has defrauded by alluring innocent public to invest in the said trading company with a monthly return of 10 to 15%. The team leaders were appointed and they were given a target of 30, 45 and 180 days to collect the investment of Rs. 3 lacks, 6.5 lacks and 35 crores, respectively. The innocent persons, who were defrauded were spread in different states and this ponzy scam involves money running into crores and police is investigating the matter through STF. The name of the accused appeared in the first information report.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive as there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Applicant is having no concern with the alleged incident. Applicant is not the director of the said company. He was part of the company as a team leader and applicant had no power to frame policy of the said trading company. Only allegation against the applicant is that, he used to pursue the innocent public to invest their money in the alleged trading company so that he may earn profit. He next submitted that mastermind of the said company, namely, Vinod Kumar Dhama and Ravidra Kumar Dhama, have already been granted bail by the Trial Court. Prima facie, no offence under alleged sections is made out against the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant and submitted that, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant and applicant's name has been disclosed by the main accused, Vinod Kumar Dhama. Further, from CD No. 10 where reference has been made in regard to statement of victim, Ravish, who was present with STF raid party, identified accused persons, namely, Vinod Kumar Dhama, Ravindra Kumar Dhama and has named other accused persons including the applicant herein. On perusal of first information report and other material evidence available on record, prima facie, offence is made out against the applicant. As such, applicant has not been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. Considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, it is apparent that it is a case of ponzy scam, wherein, proper interrogation is required to come to a definite conclusion, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage.
7. However, considering the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, where guidelines have been given for arresting a person, which are being reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:
All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41 Cr.P.C.;
All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub- clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
The Magistrate while authorizing detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorize detention;
The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Authorizing detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.
We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine."
8. In the recent judgment in the case of MD. Asfak Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another passed in Criminal Appeal No. (S) 2207 of 2023 decided on 31.07.2023, the Apex Court has reiterated the guidelines given in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
9. Taking into account the totality of the fact and circumstances of the case and the in the light of the ratio laid down in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and reiterated in the case of MD. Asfak Alam (supra), the freedom of the applicant is protected, provided if the I.O. of the case gives notice to them as provided under Sections 41 and 41(A) of Cr.P.C. and summon the applicant in this case, applicant is obliged to render his fullest cooperation in the investigation.
10. It is made clear that if some credible material is brought on record during investigation against the applicant, then only the I.O. of the case after recording its reason may affect the arrest of the applicant, strictly adhering to the guidelines provided in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and MD. Asfak Alam (supra).
11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant anticipatory bail application stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025
Aditya
