Shyam Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 665 MP

                            1
         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  MCRC No.11130/2021
               Shyam Goyal vs. State of M.P.

Gwalior, Dated : 12.03.2021

      Shri Rajiv Sharma, Counsel for the applicant.

      Shri Lokendra Shrivastava, Public Prosecutor for the

respondent/State.

Case diary is not available. However, it is submitted by the

counsel for the applicant that since the charge sheet has been filed

and he has placed the same on record, therefore, the bail

application may be considered on the basis of the charge sheet.

This is third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

for grant of bail.

The applicant has been arrested on 8.7.2020 in connection

with Crime No.22/2020 registered by Police Station Kampoo

(STF), District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 420,

120-B of IPC and added Section 66D, 74 of I.T. Act.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according

to the supplementary statement of Abhishek Gupta, the applicant

was not the Director of KIFL Bazar OPC Pvt. Ltd. but one

Shailendra Kansana was the Director and the applicant was the

nominee. It is submitted that according to the statement of

Abhishek Gupta, the nominee has no civil liability during the

lifetime of the Director. It is submitted that on the basis of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11130/2021 Shyam Goyal vs. State of M.P.

charge sheet he has prepared a tabular chart showing the liability of

the applicant. According to which, the applicant and the co-

accused Fateh Singh has liability of Rs.30,11,903/- whereas

Shailendra Kansana has the liability to pay Rs.7,05,434/- and in all,

the Company has a liability of Rs.37,17,337/- and the applicant is

ready and willing to pay one third of the said amount. The

applicant is in jail from 8.7.2020 and the trial is likely to take

sufficiently long time and in the light of the judgment passed by

the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I.

reported in (2011) SCC Cri 26, the applicant is entitled for bail.

Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the

counsel for the State.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

So far as the offer made by the counsel for the applicant of

depositing one third of the total cheated amount is concerned, the

same cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment passed by the

Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr.

by order dated 19.1.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal

No.53/2021 arising out of SLP(Cri) No.10484/2019, in which it

has been held that the Court while considering the application for

grant of bail/anticipatory bail cannot act a recovery agent of the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11130/2021 Shyam Goyal vs. State of M.P.

complainant.

So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the applicant

has relied upon the supplementary statement of Abhishek Gupta

pointing out the civil liability of the nominee. However, in this

case we are not concerned with the civil liability of the person.

From the statement of Abhishek Gupta itself, it is clear that the

applicant along with Shailendra Kansana and Fateh Singh Mahor

had approached him and had expressed their willingness to open a

company and on the advice given by Abhishek Gupta. Shailendra

Kansana was made a Director and the applicant was made a

nominee and the applicant had 12500 shares. Further, from the

statement of Wasid Khan, Raj Kumar Gupta and other victims it is

clear that the applicant along with the co-accused Abhishek Gupta

and Shailendra Kansana instigated and persuaded the innocent

depositors to deposit an amount in the account of KIFL Bazar OPC

Pvt. Ltd. on the pretext that the amount so deposited would be

doubled. It is undisputed that KIFL Bazar OPC Pvt. Ltd. was

neither registered with the RBI nor had obtained any banking

license from the RBI and the deposits were accepted contrary to

law. Since various innocent depositors have been cheated by the

applicant and the bail application of the co-accused Fateh Singh

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.11130/2021 Shyam Goyal vs. State of M.P.

Mahor has already been dismissed by this Court, this Court is of

the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

The application fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok)

Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR Date: 2021.03.12 17:49:49 +05'30'