Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 352 (MP)

Shyam Goyal v. State of M. P.

2021-03-12

G.S.AHLUWALIYA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Case diary is not available. However, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that since the charge sheet has been filed and he has placed the same on record, therefore, the bail application may be considered on the basis of the charge sheet. 2. This is third application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. 3. The applicant has been arrested on 8.7.2020 in connection with Crime No. 22/2020 registered by Police Station Kampoo (STF), District Gwalior for offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and added Section 66D, 74 of I.T. Act. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that according to the supplementary statement of Abhishek Gupta, the applicant was not the Director of KIFL Bazar OPC Pvt. Ltd. but one Shailendra Kansana was the Director and the applicant was the nominee. It is submitted that according to the statement of Abhishek Gupta, the nominee has no civil liability during the lifetime of the Director. It is submitted that on the basis of the charge sheet he has prepared a tabular chart showing the liability of the applicant. According to which, the applicant and the co-accused Fateh Singh has liability of Rs. 30,11,903/- whereas Shailendra Kansana has the liability to pay Rs. 7,05,434/- and in all, the Company has a liability of Rs. 37,17,337/- and the applicant is ready and willing to pay one third of the said amount. The applicant is in jail from 8.7.2020 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time and in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. C.B.I. reported in (2011) SCC Cri 26, the applicant is entitled for bail. 5. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the offer made by the counsel for the applicant of depositing one third of the total cheated amount is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. So far as the offer made by the counsel for the applicant of depositing one third of the total cheated amount is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. by order dated 19.1.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 53/2021 arising out of SLP(Cri) No. 10484/2019, in which it has been held that the Court while considering the application for grant of bail/anticipatory bail cannot act a recovery agent of the complainant. 8. So far as the merits of the case is concerned, the applicant has relied upon the supplementary statement of Abhishek Gupta pointing out the civil liability of the nominee. However, in this case we are not concerned with the civil liability of the person. From the statement of Abhishek Gupta itself, it is clear that the applicant along with Shailendra Kansana and Fateh Singh Mahor had approached him and had expressed their willingness to open a company and on the advice given by Abhishek Gupta. Shailendra Kansana was made a Director and the applicant was made a nominee and the applicant had 12500 shares. Further, from the statement of Wasid Khan, Raj Kumar Gupta and other victims it is clear that the applicant along with the co-accused Abhishek Gupta and Shailendra Kansana instigated and persuaded the innocent depositors to deposit an amount in the account of KIFL Bazar OPC Pvt. Ltd. on the pretext that the amount so deposited would be doubled. It is undisputed that KIFL Bazar OPC Pvt. Ltd. was neither registered with the RBI nor had obtained any banking license from the RBI and the deposits were accepted contrary to law. Since various innocent depositors have been cheated by the applicant and the bail application of the co-accused Fateh Singh Mahor has already been dismissed by this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. 9. The application fails and is hereby dismissed.