Nirbhay Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2247 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71689 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2021 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran
======================================================

NIRBHAY KUMAR YADAV S/o Late Jeewan Rai, R/o village- Lahi Banjariya, P.S.- Madhuban, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv.

For the State          :        Mr.Rajeev Nayan, APP
For the EOU            :        Mr. V.N.P Sinha, Sr. Adv.
                                Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 10-05-2023

I have already heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, the

learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rajiv

Nayan, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

and also heard Mr. V.N.P. Sinha, the learned Senior counsel,

assisted by Mrs. Soni Shrivastava, the learned counsel for the

Economic Offences Unit.

The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with

Madhuban P.S. Case No. 218 of 2021, registered for offence

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506/34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Later on, Sections 120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the

Indian Penal Code along with Section 3 of the Bihar Protection Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71689 of 2021 dt.10-05-2023

of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002

was added.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he was

kingpin of an organized gang, which committed cheating and

forgery and thereby made wrongful gain of crores of hard

earned money of a number of rustic, innocent, illiterate women

of the village. As per allegation, the petitioner along with his

wife, co-accused Meena Devi and his sons Deepak Kumar and

Raushan Kumar, in a deep conspiracy, allured the innocent

village women to form a group of 20-20 women and each group

was directed to select a group leader. Each member of group

had to contribute Rs.22,500/-. Each member of group was

allured to have a gain of huge profit. The accused persons

opened their company by fake name of Mother Teresa Future

Foundation Trust, Chennai. After collecting Rs. 4,50,000,00/-

(rupees four crores, fifty lakhs), the accused persons neither

returned the principal amount nor the interest and whenever the

innocent investors demanded their hard earned money, they

threatened to kill.

Mr. Verma, the learned Senior counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has

falsely been implicated in this case. By relying a decision of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71689 of 2021 dt.10-05-2023

Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in AIR 1982 S.C. 949, State of

West Bengal & others Vs. Swapan Kumar Guha & others, he

has submitted further that if the investigation is complete, the

personal liberty of the petitioner should not be curtailed. He has

also submitted that this Court has granted bail to Meena Devi,

Deepak Kumar and Raushan Kumar in Cr. Misc. No. 71516 of

2021 and the case of the petitioner is on similar footing. He has

submitted next that an independent Act, i.e. the Bihar Protection

of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002,

is there to deal with such type of crime and the maximum

punishment in that is of three years and general provisions of

the Indian Penal Code are not applicable in this case. He has

next submitted that the petitioner or the group never cheated the

investors. It was a group of investors and each and every

member of group is responsible for sustaining loss or profit, as

they are the independent stake holder of the group. He has also

submitted that in another case, the petitioner has been granted

bail in Cr. Misc. No. 8112 of 2022.

On the other hand, Mr. Sinha, the learned Senior

counsel for the Economic Offences Unit has opposed the prayer

for bail and submitted that the petitioner is kingpin of the group,

who cheated and misappropriated the crores of hard earned Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71689 of 2021 dt.10-05-2023

money of innocent, illiterate rustic village women and his group

members allured the women residing in village to deposit

Rs.22,500/- and when the small contribution turned into huge

money, they misappropriated it. He has submitted also that the

Investigating Officer has jotted down the statements of the

victims, from paragraph nos. 136 to 265 of the case diary it

appears that all these witnesses have categorically stated that

the petitioner and his group members cheated them. He has also

submitted that so far as the Bihar Protection of Interest of

Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 2002 is concerned,

the maximum punishment is not 3 years, but that is 10 years as

per Section 3 (proviso) of that Act. By drawing my attention

towards Section 15 (4) of that Act, he has submitted that while

trying the offence under this Act, the Court may try an offence

other than the offence under this Act with which the accused

may be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. He has also submitted that Meena Devi,

Deepak Kumar and Raushan Kumar, who are wife and sons of

the petitioner, were granted bail on the undertaking given by the

petitioner that he would return the money to those victim

women, but still he has not returned their money.

There is allegation that the petitioner, his wife and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71689 of 2021 dt.10-05-2023

two sons have cheated the innocent village women and

misappropriated their hard earned money, as such, the petitioner

does not deserve the privileges of bail. Accordingly his prayer

for bail is rejected.

The learned counsel for Economic Offences Unit, Mr.

Sinha has submitted that the petitioner was granted provisional

bail in another case by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 8112/2022 on

the basis of his assurance that he would refund the entire money

collected by him. His wife and sons were also granted bail vide

Criminal Misc. No. 71516/2021 on the basis of assurance given

by the petitioner, but still he did not adhere to his words.

In this respect, I am of the view that no order can be

passed in this petition as those matters are separate. The

Economic Offences Unit as well as the State may take remedies

provided under law.

                                                 (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)

Mahesh/Nirmal
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                28.04.2023
Uploading Date          10.05.2023
Transmission Date       10.05.2023