Hirak Nath Sounth v. Union of India through CBI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 s. 70
- Chit Fund Act, 1982 ss. 76, 79
- Banning Act, 1978
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner For the CBI : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Shiwani Jaluka, A.C. to DSGI …... 06/ 15.09.2022. Apprehending his arrest, petitioner above-named has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with R.C. Case No. 26(S)/17 E.O.W.R registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 70 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 76/79 of Chit Fund Act, 1982, pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., cum- Special judicial magistrate C.B.I Dhanbad. As per the prosecution case the accused persons including the petitioner formed Roofers Group of Companies by starting more than 12 companies having its registered office in Kolkatta. These companies were not authorised by the RBI and as SEBI for doing business of banking but they were collecting amount from the customers through agents on the false promise high rate of interest in recurring deposits, fixed deposits with an intention to cheat the public in which the directors, partners and branch managers of the said company were involved. The accused persons had collected ₹ 5 crore from Jamtara branch from June 2011 to August
2013. During investigation it came to light that these group of companies had spread their activity in state of West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam and also in different districts of Jharkhand. The petitioner was found to be the main accused behind the formation of these companies who had also entered into real estate business in the state of West Bengal and others such business. After investigation chargesheet cognizance under sections 120 B, read with 409, 420 of the IPC and 4,5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act,1978. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that Section 409 shall not apply as he is not a public servant. The petitioner before the lodging of the FIR had tendered his resignation on 30.6.2011, 20.10.11 and
Operative part
31.1.2011 when Roofers Marketing Pvt Ltd, was changed into public limited company without his knowledge by other co-accused persons. The other two co- accused persons have already been enlarged on regular bail. Once the regular bail is allowed to similarly situated accused there is no impediment in granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharth Vs. The State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021. Investigation has been completed and there is no prospect that petitioner shall abscond. Learned counsel for C.B.I. has opposed the bail petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI that this petitioner was the main accused who was the founder promoter and director of these companies. The companies were engaged in banking activities without any formal permission from the RBI and thereby caused wrongful loss to the investors. It also raised deposits from the general public of Jharkhand in the name of chit fund company issuing non-convertible secured redeemable debentures promising huge return and thereby misappropriated the amount so raised. Even after resignation the petitioner was operating the account of the company. Other co-accused persons have not been granted anticipatory bail. The investigation in this case has concluded and the charge sheet has already been filed. Considering the submissions of learned counsel and the fact as discussed above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Hence, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the petitioner named above shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr. P.C. The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear on notice under Section 41 A of Cr.P.C. and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Rohit/- (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: above, the anticipatory bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 70; Chit Fund Act, 1982 — ss. 76, 79; Banning Act, 1978; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.