Karunesh Awasthi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8665 MP

                                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                  AT GWALIOR
                                       BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
                          ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2023
      MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.18275 OF 2023

BETWEEN:-

KARUNESH AWASTHI, S/O SHRI RAM KUMAR
AWASTHI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE, R/O: 3/56 SECTOR-H, JANKIPURAM
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH.
                                                                    ........APPLICANT

(BY SHRI PRASHANT SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
STATION   HOUSE    OFFICER,  KOTWALI,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                 ........RESPONDENT

(BY SHRI LOKENDRA SHRIVASTAVA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This application coming on for admission this day, the Court
passed the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       ORDER

Case diary is available.

2. This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant as he has been arrested on 21/2/2023 in

connection with Crime No.26/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 of IPC and Section 6(1) of M.P. Nikshepakon Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.

3. As per prosecution story, a complaint was lodged by the complainant Moolchand Gupta alleging therein that Sahara Company (Sahara India) through its agents/employees working at its Branch Office, Morena lured the complainant to invest money with the promise to make his investment double within eight years and thereby took total amount of Rs.2,08,960/- from the complainant, but did not return the said amount after the maturity period.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is apparent from the record that applicant has been implicated in the matter only because he is the Managing Director / Director of the Company. Admittedly, the applicant was posted at Central Office, 02 Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow and never dragged or lured the complainant and other customers to invest their money with the company. His name is not mentioned either in the FIR or in the statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation. 4.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that this is not the prosecution case that the Sahara Company (Sahara India) denied to return the amount to the complainant or the other customers. It is specifically been mentioned in the FIR and statements of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses that the Branch Manager of the said Branch told the complainant and other customers to extend the period of fixed deposit as sufficient fund is not available with the company. He referring the order dated 21/11/2013 passed by Hon'ble the

Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.412/2012 submits that Sahara Group of Companies has been restrained to transfer any movable or immovable property until further orders. He by referring the order dated 29/3/2023 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.191/2022 submits that in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble the Apex Court, an amount of Rupees Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty Seven Crores was deposited in Sahara-SEBI account, which is lying unutilized with the SEBI and out of which, Rupees Five Thousand Crores has been transferred to the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies with a direction to disburse the same against the legitimate dues of the depositors. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that any of the alleged offences is made out against the applicant. Complainant is free to get his money as per the directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court by order dated 29/3/2023 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.191/2022. Applicant is in custody since 21/2/2023. Charge-sheet has already been filed. His custodial interrogation is no more required. Prosecution case is based on documentary evidence and investigation as well as trial will certainly take long time, therefore, he is entitled for bail.

4.2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted a copy of order dated 11/5/2023 passed in M.Cr.C. No.19540/2023 in support of his above submissions, wherein in identical matter applicant has been granted the benefit of bail. He has also filed copy of order dated 1/5/2023 passed in MCRCA No.1521/2022 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur as well as copy of judgment dated 11/4/2023 passed in CWP-15165-2022 (O&M) & CWP-12709-2022 (O&M) and CWP-15700-2022 (O&M) by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at

Chandigarh in this regard.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that applicant being Managing Director of the Company is liable for the mischief committed by the companie's agents/employees working at the Branch Office, Morena. The applicant alongwith other co-accused persons took huge amount from the complainant and thereafter misappropriated the same. Directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court with regard to disbursal of the amount to the depositors did not relate with the company wherein the amount was invested by the complainant. He by referring the order dated 27/4/2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.17835/2023 submits that in identical matter applicant's application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed on merits and SLP (Crl.) No.6127/2023 filed against the said order has also been dismissed by order dated 18/5/2023. As the order of rejection of bail of the applicant has been affirmed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, therefore, in this identical matter applicant may not be released on bail and his application be rejected.

6. In reply to the submissions made by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 27/4/2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.17835/2023 dismissing applicant's bail application was passed because the investigation in the said matter was pending at that time and it has specifically been mentioned in the concluding para that "at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.....". He further submits that vide order dated 11/5/2023 passed by the same coordinate Bench in M.Cr.C. No.19540/2023, wherein investigation was complete and charge-sheet was filed, applicant has been enlarged on bail,

therefore, applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail in this matter, whose facts are identical to that of M.Cr.C. No.19540/2023.

7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

8. Upon perusal of the record and copy of the citations submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties, it is apparent that vide order dated 27/4/2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.17835/2023 applicant's application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed stating the stage of the investigation, while vide order dated 11/5/2023 passed by the same coordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.19540/2023 applicant's application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was allowed. In the instant matter also, charge- sheet has been filed.

8.1 Under these circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, specially with regard to the fact that applicant being the Managing Director of the company has been implicated in the matter and vide order dated 21/11/2013 passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Contempt Petition (C) No.412/2012 Sahara Group of Companies has been restrained to transfer any movable or immovable property, so also the directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No.191/2022 and also considering the period of custody of the applicant and the fact that conclusion of the trial will certainly take long time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the application is allowed.

8.2 It is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court for his appearance before the Trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Trial Court during the pendency of trial. It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.

8.3 This application is allowed and stands disposed of.

Certified copy as per Rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2023.06.15 18:15:25 +05'30'