High Court
Case Details
1 Reserved on : 31.05.2022 Delivered on : 09.06.2022 1. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6272 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subir Lal,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 2. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6585 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Raj Verma,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 3. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6901 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 4. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7104 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinkar Lal,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. 5. Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7143 of 2022 Applicant :- Manoj Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yash Raj Verma,Swetashwa Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J. Since all the aforementioned bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant Manoj Tyagi and arise out of similar nature of cases, they have been heard together and are being decided of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6272 of 2022 is being treated as leading case.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Swetashwa Agarwal, learned counsel for the 2 applicant as well as Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State. It was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that in this matter applicant is in jail since 20.12.2020. Applicant has no concern with the present matter. Neither applicant was named in the F.I.R. nor he was in picture till the submission of third charge sheet. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to case diary and further submitted that no active role has been assigned to the applicant. Neither applicant was the Director or signatory of the Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (in short 'GIPL') nor he induced at any point of time to the investors to invest money in Bike Bot Scheme. It was further submitted that nothing is on record collected by the investigating agencies to connect the applicant with the Bike Bot Scheme. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant to connect him with the aforesaid Scheme. Prosecution launched against the applicant is also illegal, as Companies to which applicant was Director have not been arraigned as an accused. Entire prosecution case against the applicant is improbable and unbelievable. Cheques said to have been issued by Karan Pal Singh are also not related to the applicant nor signatures over the said cheques were made by the applicant. He has been implicated in these cases on the basis of vague and general allegations. It was next contended that allegation against the applicant that transaction amounting to Rs. 21.13 Crores took place while applicant was Director of sister companies of G.I.P.L. is also false, as applicant has not been devolved with any financial power. He did not take part in any Board meeting nor amount said to have been deposited by the investors in the Bike Bot Scheme 3 was diverted to other companies or person on the direction of the applicant. It was further submitted that applicant was also not signatory of the sister companies of the GIPL. Though he was Director yet no active role has been played by the applicant in the said scheme. Referring to ingredients of alleged offences, it was further submitted that if entire evidence collected by the Investigating Officer are also taken into consideration then also none of the witnesses interrogated by the Investigating Officer had made any allegation against the applicant at initial stage. Role of the applicant is distinguishable with the role of main accused. It was next contended that having identical role co-accused Sanjay Goel was granted bail by Apex Court vide Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No. (s) 3906 of 2021 and co-accused Satinder Singh Bhasin and Dinesh Pandey have been released on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4012 of 2021 and 15797 of 2021. Similarly, co-accused Smt. Rekha and Vijay Kumar Sharma have also been released on bail by this Court vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10011 of 2021 and 16113 of 2021. Since charge sheet has been filed, entire evidence has been collected, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bar. Hence, present applicant is also entitled for bail. On the other hand, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that though the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. yet he has also played active role in committing the present offence. He was the Director of sister companies of the GIPL. Huge amount invested by the investors were deposited in the account of sister companies of the GIPL to which applicant was one of the Directors. Amounts so deposited in the accounts of sister companies of GIPL were diverted for another purposes to another person. Investors 4 are still awaiting for their return of hard-earned money. Referring to affidavit filed in support of bail applications and counter affidavit it was further submitted that applicant cannot be released on bail simply on the ground of bail orders passed in respect of Sanjay Goel, Satinder Singh Bhasin, Smt. Rekha, Dinesh Pandey and Vijay Kumar Sharma. Huge money amounting to Rs. 21.13 Crores has been diverted during the period when the applicant was the Director of the sister companies of GIPL. Referring to investigation report it was further submitted that specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He cannot be absolved with the liability merely on this basis that he was not named in the F.I.R.. Name of the applicant surfaced in the matter during investigation on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. He was also involved in committing the present offence. He issued forged cheques in favour of investors which were bounced later on. It was also submitted that in the identical situation bail applications of co-accused B.N. Tiwari and some others have been rejected. Referring to paragraphs nos. 54 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application it was also submitted that applicant himself has admitted that he was the Director of the companies disclosed in this paragraph during the period when Bike Bot Scheme was launched. Averments have been made in the affidavit that settled amount entered into between the applicant companies and the owners of GIPL were not returned to the Companies of the applicant. Pendency of the matter before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre at Delhi High Court indicates that allegations levelled against the applicant are true. Applicant has participated in day-to-day affairs of the Companies concerned. He was actually in control of administrative and financial powers of the said Companies. It was next contended 5 that applicant has himself admitted that he remained on board till 15.12.2018 and has provided his services for smooth transaction of business of Companies concerned. This fact itself indicates that applicant has committed the present offence. All the ingredients of alleged offences are available in the matter against the present applicant. Since number of criminal cases are pending against the applicant, it cannot be said that a prima facie case is not made out against the applicant. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to documents annexed with the bail application and counter affidavit and prayed for rejection of bail application. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. Brief facts of the case, in nutshell, as disclosed by informant Rajendra Pratap Singh, are that he alongwith other investors, namely, Geeta Devi Manju Lata Singh, Sneh Lata Singh and Pratipal Singh invested an amount of Rs. 16,76,700/- out of which informant invested Rs. 4,34,700/-, Geeta Devi invested Rs. 4,34,700/-, Manju Lata Singh invested Rs. 1,86,300/-, Sneh Lata Singh invested Rs. 3,10,500/- and Pratipal Singh invested Rs. 3,10,500/- on 27.11.2018 in the Company Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited in its Bike Bot Scheme through Videsh Bhati and Sanjay Bhati. It was also alleged that as per the said Scheme informant was to be given an amount of Rs. 68,355/- per month with effect from 27.12.2018 but no amount was paid to him and when informant tried to contact the owner of the Company, namely, Sanjay Bhati and Videsh Bhati, he was misbehaved and was extended threat for dire consequences. Similar nature of F.I.Rs. have also been lodged in connected matters. 6 In this matter, as is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He was not the Director, Office Bearer or Manager of the GIPL. He was Director of sister companies of GIPL. There is no evidence to show that the applicant at any point of time induced or propagate to invest money in the Bike Bot Scheme launched by the GIPL. Cheques said to have been issued in the matter were issued by one Karan Pal Singh. No amount has been credited in the personal account of the applicant. Thus, keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the ingredients of alleged offences, the orders granting bail to co- accused Sanjay Goel, Satinder Singh Bhasin, Smt. Rekha, Dinesh Pandey and Vijay Kumar Sharma and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail applications are liable to be allowed and same are accordingly allowed. Let the applicant Manoj Tyagi involved in Case Crime Nos. 385 of 2019, 873 of 2019, 697 of 2019, 432 of 2019 and 362 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions : 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses. 7 3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. 5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6. The applicant shall deposit his passport with the trial court within two weeks from the date of his release and if he has no passport, he shall swear to it on affidavit within the same period and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :-09.06.2022 safi Digitally signed by MAHBOOB SAFI Date: 2022.06.09 16:27:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad