High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23862 of 2022 Applicant :- Pradeep Singh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Legal Reasoning
11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and submissions and keeping in view the fact that even as per F.I.R. allegations, the applicant was merely a Branch Manager in the Company and that the F.I.R. does not contain any allegation against the applicant, that in the order dated 26.05.2014, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has directed the Directors of the Company to refund the amount invested in the Company and also having regard to the fact that the applicant has already been granted bail in several other cases of similar nature, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 12. In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 13. Let the applicant Pradeep Singh Yadav be released on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not influence any witness. (iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 14. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail. Order Date :- 23.8.2022 Jaswant Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.08.24 16:36:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 368 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura during pendency of the trial in the Court below. 3. The F.I.R. of the aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an application filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on 20.05.2018 against four persons (1) Chairman Manager Director Jai Krishna Singh Rana, (2) M.D. Vipin Kumar Yadav, (3) G.M. Sunil Kumar and (4) Branch Manager Pradeep Singh Yadav, alleging that the informant had booked a flat in Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited for Rs. 11,99,000/- out of which he had paid Rs. 1,70,000/- only. The balance amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000/- in thirty six months. It is stated that on 26.09.2015, the informant gave an application for cancelling the booking of the flat but the amount deposited by him was not refunded by the Company. 4. A copy of the Certificate of Commencement of Business of Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited has been filed in support of the bail application, which contains the names of all the seven share holders of the Company and the applicant's name does not find place in it. 5. In the statement of co-accused Vipin Singh Yadav, he has stated that he was the Director of the Company and apart from him, Rajkumar Yadav, Manjeet Kumar, Jitendra Bohra and Dharmendra Sharma were also the Directors of the Company. Similar statements were given by all the other Directors. 6. It has further been stated in the affidavit that Kalpatru Buildtech Corporation Limited did not repay the amount of several investors whereupon the matter was taken up to the Securities and Exchange Board of India and on 26.05.2014, the Securities and Exchange Board of India has passed an order under Section 19 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Sections 11 (1), 11B and 11 (4) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 read with Regulation 65 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Scheme), 1999, restraining the aforesaid Company from collecting any money from the investors and directing its Director Vishvnath Pratap Singh and Mr. Shashi Kant Mishra to refund the money of the investors. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid material indicates that the applicant was not a Director of the Company and he has not been held liable to refund the money as per direction issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Even as per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the applicant was a Branch Manager in the Company and, therefore, he is not liable to repay any money that has been invested in the Company. 8. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2021. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and he has submitted that being the Branch Manager in the Company, the applicant has played active role in pursuing the informant to make investment in the Company. 10. Refuting the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that admittedly the informant has invested some money in the Company and only the Directors of the Company are responsible for refund of the money invested in the Company and it has been so held by the Securities and Exchange Board of India in its order dated 26.05.2014. He has submitted that the applicant was merely an employee of the Company, and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for any misdeeds committed by the Company and he has further submitted that in several other cases of similar nature, the applicant has already been granted bail. He has placed before the Court the copies of the bail orders dated 25.03.2022, 11.07.2022, 25.07.2022 and 25.03.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 8347 of 2022, 20726 of 2022, 23675 of 2022, 8347 of 2022.