Sonu Gupta vs Union Territory Of J&K
2021 Latest Caselaw 578 j&K

                                                                      Suppl. List-2
                                                                      Sr. No. 221
             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT JAMMU
                             (Through Virtual Mode)

                                                  Bail App. No. 110/2021
                                                  CrlM No. 775/2021
                                                  CrlM No. 776/2021

Sonu Gupta                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                       Through :- Mr. Ajay Gupta, Advocate
                                   v/s

Union Territory of J&K                                   ......Respondent(s)

                        Through :- Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG

Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE
::: :                              JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of arrest in F.I.R. No.

233/2019 registered with Police Station, R. S. Pura, Jammu under Section

420 IPC on a complaint filed by Tirath Singh. It is stated that the accused

Sonu Gupta, Shashi Gupta and Gourav Gupta have committed fraud with the

complainant and other persons as the accused have collected the paddy and

wheat from them and issued receipts to the concerned persons with regard to

the same but failed to pay the amount for the crop. The accused is stated to be

running Firm under the Name and Style of Ashoka Traders. The accused

have swindled crores of rupees of the persons who had deposited their crop

with the accused. It may be mentioned that the investigation was later on

transferred to the Crime Branch, Jammu.

2. The objections to the application have been filed. It is submitted

in the objections that the accused-petitioner is involved in a serious offence

as he kept the crop worth crores of rupees which was taken from the poor

farmers. The investigation reveals that an amount of rupees more than two

crores forty lakhs has been swindled by the petitioner. The statements of

some of the witnesses have been recorded which reveal the involvement of

the accused in the matter. It is also submitted that the accused is not

cooperating with the Investigating Agency. Along with the objections the

respondent has annexed particulars of the persons who have recorded their

statements before the Investigating Officer and the amount to which they are

entitled to from the accused persons. The receipts have also been issued to

the farmers who deposited their crop with the accused. It is made out from

the record that the accused was granted interim bail by the Court of learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, though the application for bail was

later dismissed by the said court vide order dated 10.04.2021.

3. During course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner herein. The

custody of the petitioner is not required as the investigation is almost

complete as per the objections filed by the respondent before the Court of

learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in the application filed for bail

before the said court. The complainant Tirath Singh is business rival of the

petitioner and that is why he got the case registered against him. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has cooperated

with the Investigating Agency and there is no case for the respondent to seek

custody of the petitioner.

4. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG has argued that the petitioner

had though procured crop from the farmers yet he failed to pay the price of

the crop to those farmers and the amount runs into crores of rupees. Some of

the farmers are yet to record their statements before the Investigating Officer

and which may reveal more money which the petitioner owes to the farmers.

It is emphatically submitted on behalf of the respondent that the investigation

is still going on in the matter and that the petitioner has not cooperated with

the Investigating Agency.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the

Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2014 SC 2756 titled Arnesh

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. in support of his contentions.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied

upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) SC 24 titled

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

7. There cannot be any dispute with what has been held by the

Apex Court in both the judgments. However each case has its peculiar facts

which determine the outcome of the bail application.

8. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner-accused

is that despite receiving the crop from number of farmers he failed to pay the

price of the same to those farmers. The argument of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the present case is outcome of the business rivalry between the

complainant-Tirath Singh and the petitioner herein cannot be entertained as

far as the present application is concerned. The enquiry with regard to the

alleged rivalry is not to be held by this Court.

9. The respondent while filing the objections has annexed the

statement wherein the names of the farmers who have so far recorded their

statements before the Investigating Officer has been mentioned. It also

depicts the receipts with regard to obtaining of crops from those persons and

also the money which is due to them from the petitioner. The amount runs

into more than two crores forty lakhs as per the statement to which the

farmers have been duped. It also appears that certain record has been seized

and more is required to be seized as part of investigation. No doubt the

offence which has been slapped upon the petitioner the punishment for the

same is upto seven years but it does not mean that the petitioner-accused

person can seek bail merely on that ground if the facts of the case do make

out that custody of the accused is required in the case. The petitioner-accused

cannot be given concession of anticipatory bail as he is required to be

investigated for the alleged fraud he has committed with the farmers.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the

petitioner was granted interim bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Jammu though the same was later on dismissed on merits.

The petitioner during the course of interim bail attended the investigation and

there was no reason not to allow his bail application. The learned counsel for

the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not cooperating with the

investigation even during interim bail granted by the aforesaid court. The

court does not find any reason to disbelieve the submission of the learned

counsel for the respondent in this regard.

11. The fact that the petitioner is stated to be involved in duping

farmers of crores of rupees as the petitioner failed to pay the amount for the

crop they have deposited with the petitioner, the investigation is still going on

in the case and that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the

Investigating Agency, the court does not find sufficient ground to grant bail

in anticipation of arrest to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the custody of

the petitioner is not required by Investigating Agency. The present petition is

without merit and is dismissed.

(Puneet Gupta) Judge Jammu 31.05.2021 Shammi

MUNEESH SHARMA Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No 2021.05.31 15:47 Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document