Koushlesh Kumar Morya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3466 MP

      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     M.Cr.C. No.26973/2021
         ( Koushlesh Kumar Morya Vs. State of M.P.)
                                                                         1

Jabalpur, Dated : 20 / 07/ 2021
      Heard through video conferencing.
      Shri R.S. Mourya, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Shri M.K. Singh, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.

Shri Ishan Soni, counsel for the objector.

Heard with the aid of case diary.

This is fifth bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Applicant Koushlesh Kumar Morya was arrested on 21.03.2017 in Crime No.33/2017 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC.

Earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6285/2017. The third bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 48429/2018 while the second and fourth bail applications of the applicant were dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 24.01.2018 and 05.12.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 15837/2017, 9665/2020.

As per the prosecution case, Astha Build Tech Limited (for short 'the company') is a non-banking finance private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The company has four active Directors namely Rajit Ram Maurya, who is also the Chairman and the CMD of the company, Koushlesh Kumar Maurya, who is the applicant herein, co-accused Ratan Dasgupta and Rajendra Prasad Singh. There are four officials in the company. The company has its registered Head Office at Mumbai and its Sub Offices are located at Jabalpur and Allahabad. On 31.01.2017, complainant Jyoti Sondhiya lodged the FIR at at Police Station Civil Lines, District Jabalpur averring that co- accused Ramphal Rajak had persuaded her to invest her savings into the company as the company would double the investment in six years. He THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26973/2021 ( Koushlesh Kumar Morya Vs. State of M.P.)

introduced her to co-accused Ratan Das Gupta, the Director of the company. They made her believe that the company would double her investment in six years. Thereupon, she took premature payments of the FDRs which she had with Union Bank, Branch Jabalpur. She invested a total of Rs.98,000/- (Ninety Eight Thousand) in the company in her own name and in the names of her daughter Sonam, sons Sandeep and Saurabh. Her husband suffered a stroke of paralysis. Thereupon, she approached the company office at Jabalpur to get premature payment of the FDRs which the company had issued to her. She found that the company had closed down its office at Jabalpur. She came to know that Krishna Patel, Roshni Patel and Kamla Satnami and others also invested the money in the company upon the persuasion of co-accused Ramphal Rajak and Ratan Dasgupta. The police initially registered the case against co-accused persons namely Ramphal Rajak and Ratan Dasgupta. Later, the police added in the list of accused persons, the applicant and other Directors of the company and its officials.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence. The name of the applicant do not find place in the FIR. He submits that as per the FDRs issued to complainant Jyoti Sondhiya, the maturity dates of them are of the year 2020, therefore, she is not entitled to get premature payments of her FDRs. In this fact situation, the police has wrongly registered the case upon the report of complainant Jyoti Sondhiya. He further submits that the applicant has nothing to do with the working of the company at Jabalpur. He further submits that the company has lands worth crores of rupees at Jabalpur and Allahabad. Thus, the financial position of the company is very sound, and the company is in a position to return the money invested by the investors in the schemes floated by it. For this purpose, the company has published public notices in the issues dated 21.05.2017 and 04.06.2017 of the Daily News papers namely Peoples Samachar and Dabang Dunia THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26973/2021 ( Koushlesh Kumar Morya Vs. State of M.P.)

respectively published from Jabalpur intimating the investors of the company to get their money back by depositing the documents issued by the company. The co-accused Ramphal Rajak and Khemraj Gupta have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 09.05.2017 & 17.12.2018 in M.Cr.C.Nos.2825/2017 & 15836/2017. Charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant is in custody since 21.03.2017 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a long time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.

Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the objectors opposed the prayer and submitted that the applicant Koushlesh Kumar Maurya is the real son of the CMD of the company and co-accused Rajit Ram Maurya and Astha is the daughter of applicant Kaushlesh Kumar Maurya upon whose name, the company is set up and named. They further submit that the objectors have invested their money in the FDRs floated by the company and the FDRs have been matured, despite that the company are not making payments against them. They further submit that the FDRs have been issued with the signatures of applicant Kaushlesh Kumar Maurya as the Director of the company. They further submit that the company has to pay eight to ten crore rupees to Jabalpur based investors and in comparison to said amount the lands possessed by the company have market value not more than rupees ten to fifteen lakhs. They submit that objector John Masih has invested rupees fifty lakhs in the schemes floated by the company. It is further submitted that earlier first and third bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits since then there is no change in circumstances. So, the applicant should be released on bail.

Earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.06.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6285/2017. The third bail application was also rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2019 passed in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26973/2021 ( Koushlesh Kumar Morya Vs. State of M.P.)

M.Cr.C. No. 48429/2018 since then there is no change in circumstances except the custody period. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI Through its Director reported in (2007) 1 SCC 70 held that bail, can not be granted solely on the ground of long incarnation in jail and inability of accused to conduct the defence. Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 observed "It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. But without the change in the circumstances, the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa [(2001) 1 SCC 169 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 113] and various other judgments."

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, enormity of fraud and involvement of applicant in the crime, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

Accordingly, the application is rejected.

                                                         (Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe                                                        Judge




           Digitally signed
           by NAVEEN
           KUMAR
           SARATHE
           Date: 2021.07.20
           17:45:12 +05'30'