Sunil Kumar Mittal v. State of U.P., order whereof is reproduced hereinunder
Case Details
Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51442 of 2021 Applicant :- Sunil Mittal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Brij Lal Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. Instructions produced before this Court by the learned A.G.A. are taken on record.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned AGA for the State. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Sunil Mittal for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.349 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B I.P.C. and 66 of Information Technology Act, registered at Police Station-Kotwali Shahar, District- Bijnor. The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 22.6.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Sri Nishant Parashar son of Shashikant Sharma before P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor being FIR no. 0349 on 15.4.2017 against the applicant and 4 others with an allegation that the informant gave an amount of Rs.57,500/- to open an account in the Company and when now the amount is being sought to be demanded with interest, the same has not been paid. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question, as the subject Company being M/s Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. is a duly incorporated company under the provisions contained under the Companies Act, 1956 on 7.9.2010, wherein initially, the applicant along with Anubhav Mittal was the Director. However, consequent to the resolution so passed therein, the management got changed and in place of the applicant, one Ayushi Agarwal was introduced as Director on 3.3.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant has sought to argue that on the date of the initiation of the criminal proceeding while lodging of the FIR on 15.4.2017, the applicant was not the Director, as he stood replaced by one Ayushi Agarwal. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he on the date of lodging of the FIR had any connection with the case. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to buttress his submission has drawn the attention towards the order dated 3.5.2018 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20243 of 2017, Sunil Kumar Mittal Vs. State of U.P., order whereof is reproduced hereinunder: "Parcha filed by Sri Rajrshi Gupta on behalf of the applicant is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This bail application has been preferred by the accused applicant, Sunil Kumar Mittal, who is involved in case crime no.163 of 2017, under Sections 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B,34 I.P.C. and 3/4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, P.S. NOIDA Fase-III, District Gautambudh Nagar. Brief facts of the case are that the informant had given a sum of Rs.57500/- to the User ID 62081909 (Rekha Sharma) to open an account in the company, through the informant's brother (Sanjeev Kumar) account no.02400100045586 of Uco Bank Branch Krishna Nagar through Neft, whereas the company is denying the receipt of money since then. Now the informant is demanding the return of his money with interest from Ablaze Info Solution Pvt. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement twice, of the witness as well as informant on 02.02.2017 and 21.03.2017 respectively. The company Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is a duly incorporated company under the Companies Act, 1956 on 07.09.2010. The company was initially incorporated with two Directors namely Anubhav Mittal and present applicant i.e. Sunil Kumar Mittal. The quorum of the Board of Directors of the Company was later on changed and in place of applicant, Ayushi Mittal was inducted as a Director on 03.03.2016. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since present applicant was not the Director of the said company at the time of incident as alleged in the F.I.R., therefore, he had no concern whatsoever with the affairs and management of the company. The applicant is doing his own business under the name and style of M/s Mittal Electric Sores, which has no concern with the Ablaze Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.. He has falsely been implicated in this case only on the ground that he is the father of Anubhav Mittal, Director of the Company. He further submitted that during the period of offence mentioned in the F.I.R. i.e. from 21.12.2017 to 01.02.2017, the applicant was not a Director in the company, therefore, he had no connection with the company affairs and the management of the company as he was replaced as a Director of the Company by Ayushi Agarwal on 03.03.2016. The applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He categorically denies receiving of any money into the account of Company or any of the Directors of the Company of the complainant and it appears that some 3rd person, claiming himself to be connected on behalf of the Company, has enticed the complainant to receive the amount from him but the same has neither been credited to the Company nor any of its Director as well as the applicant has received the aforesaid amount in part or in full. He further submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R.. He has no criminal history. Chargesheet has already been filed in the case on 02.02.2017. He is an old person Lastly he submitted that the applicant is in custody since 07.04.2017 i.e. about one year and he undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail, if he is released on bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence and age of the applicant without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. Let the applicant Sunil Kumar Mittal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence. 2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses. 3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court. 4. The applicant shall not commit any 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. In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court below would be at liberty to cancel the bail without any reference to this Court." Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that once he being not the Director on the date of lodging of the FIR has been noticed in the aforesaid order, then no criminal liability can be fastened upon his shoulders. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph-15, so as to contend that there are certain criminal cases, which are intermingled and interwoven with the present criminal case. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that so far as Case Crime nos. 479, 816 and 97 all of 2017 are concerned, same are off-shoot of the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that so far as Case Crime no. 163 of 2017 is concerned, he has been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards page-25, 27 and 29 of the bail application being orders dated 3.7.2018, 8.4.2019 and 15.6.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21358 of 2018, 14428/2019 and 14289/2020, enlarging the applicant on bail in Case Crime no.185 of 2017, 259/2017 and 147/2017. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no other criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 31.10.2019. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail. Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that applicant has committed the offence and merely because he has resigned or he is not the Director on the date of lodging of the FIR, as suggested by him will not be in any manner whatsoever hold the applicant innocent. However, learned A.G.A, could not dispute the fact that the fact about the change of the constitution of the Company as noticed in the aforesaid bail orders and with regard to the criminal cases, so pending against him, as according to the instructions, so received by the learned A.G.A. from P.S. Kotwali City, Bulandshahr on 29.11.2021, the aforesaid cases so disclosed by the applicant are correct and there is no other cases. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the factum of change of constitution of the Company has been noticed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 20243 of 2017, Sunil Kumar Mittal Vs. State of U.P. on 3.5.2018, applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 31.10.2019, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Sunil Mittal involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. Order Date :- 4.3.2022 N.S.Rathour Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.05 09:53:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad