Delhi High Court
Rabindra Kumar Singh vs State Of Delhi on 23 May, 2017
$ 39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 23rd May, 2017
+ BAIL APPL. 685/2017 & Crl.M.A.8561/2017
RABINDRA KUMAR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Dr. Kislay Pandey & Ankur
Gogia, Advs.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for
State with SI Rakesh Kumar,
PS New Ashok Nagar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. First information report (FIR) No. 1136/2015 was registered on
22.8.2015 on the complaint of Akhilesh Kumar for and on behalf of
Vibrant Infratel Pvt. Ltd. alleging offence punishable under Section
420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 having been
committed. The crime reported in the said FIR has been under
investigation, allegations therein having been made, inter alia, against
the petitioner herein he being the prime suspect.
2. As per the status report submitted in response to the petition at
hand by the station house officer of police station New Ashok Nagar,
the petitioner has not been very cooperative as the documents required
to be produced were not made available. The petitioner had earlier
moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Court of
Sessions, it being bail application No. 161/2017 which was dismissed
by the said court by detailed order dated 30.03.2017. It is in the wake
of the said order that the present bail application was moved under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Cr.P.C).
3. The matter was heard on 19.04.2017, when the counsel for the
petitioner sought time to come up with copies of orders passed on the
file of company petition No. 95/2012, it having a bearing on the issues
raised here. Copies of some of such orders were submitted in due
course. The matter was further heard on 16.5.2017 when more time
was again sought to come with additional documents. The matter was
adjourned to 18th July, 2017 on such request. Thereafter on the
application (Crl.M.A. 8561/2017), the hearing has been pre-poned and
the matter has been heard.
4. The background facts have been succinctly noted by the
Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the application for similar relief
by her order dated 30.3.2017. The dispute between the first informant
and the petitioner, he being the director of T& S Logistics Pvt. Ltd.,
relates to two agreements first dated 21.9.2010, it having been
described as memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the second
dated 1st September, 2011. It appears the company in which the
petitioner has been a director (T&S Logistics Pvt. Ltd) was facing
financial difficulties and was in need of support. It is in that context
that it entered into the arrangement with M/s Vibrant Infratel through
its director (first informant), pursuant to which the control and shares
of the company of the petitioner was to be transferred to the
complainant in consideration of which M/s Vibrant Infratel was to
invest its money, it having paid by different instalments amount of
over Rs. 1.2 crores to the petitioner. The conjoint effect of the two
agreements, the latter dated 1.9.2011 being in the nature of share
purchase agreement, was that the bank accounts of T& S Logistics
were to be operated jointly and complainant was to be put in the
position of nominee director. It is stated that T& S Logistics was
expected to collect Rs. 15.26 crores as outstanding debts owed to it by
various persons and though money on that account was realized by the
petitioner and his associates, the same was not accounted by being
deposited in the account of the company. It is stated that the intention
of the petitioner was dishonest right from inception as the control over
T& S Logistics was never made over in terms of the agreements and,
instead, notice was served in breach of the commitments made by the
above mentioned agreements removing the first informant from the
position of nominee director. The most telling circumstance presented
as incriminating against the petitioner is that he had continued to
receive payments from Vibrant Infratel Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the two
agreements though being privy to and consequently withholding the
crucial information from the first informant that T& S Logistics was
involved in proceedings of winding up in the Company Court, in the
wake of statutory notice issued by its creditors on 5.10.2011, the
company petition having been filed on 27.2.2012 leading eventually to
winding up order dated 17.1.2013.
5. In the facts and circumstances which have come to the fore
through the investigation carried out thus far, it cannot be said that the
allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are unfounded or that the
dispute is purely civil in nature. The above noted factual matrix
reveals that the criminal intention attributed to the petitioner is based
on conduct which requires proper investigation.
6. It is pertinent to add here that the case at hand is not an isolated
one involving the petitioner as an accused. It was conceded at the bar,
during the course of arguments by his counsel, that in proceedings
emanating from investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office
(SFIO), the petitioner is facing prosecution concerning acts of
commission and omission involving affairs of the same company i.e.
M/s T& S Logistics.
7. In above facts and circumstances, this court agrees with the
view taken by the court of sessions in the order dated 30.3.2017 and,
thus, rejects the prayer for release of the petitioner on anticipatory
bail.
8. The petition is dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
MAY 23, 2017
nk
