Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1200 (RAJ)

Dinesh Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan

2023-05-29

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2023
ORDER : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.143/2022 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City (West) for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC. 2. As per prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused persons fraudulently induced the complainant and other persons to invest an amount of Rs.50 lacs or more in FX ARENA, company against a return of more than 400% in one year. As per prosecution, the accused persons assured the investors that they will also get bonus of 10%, over and above the promised return. They were assured of foreign trips as well. As per prosecution, huge amount was invested by the complainant and other persons in the bank accounts as per the details provided by accused persons. After passing of the assured period, when an inquiry was made about the return/profit on the amount deposited, the complainant came to know that a fraud has been committed upon them and their money has been misappropriated. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the complainant was duly informed about the risks carried by the investments. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a well known fact that when one invests in a company or stock, it always involves various types of financial/market risk. 4. Drawing attention of the Court towards charge sheet, learned counsel submitted that the amount was deposited by the complainant and other investors in the accounts of co-accused persons. According to learned counsel, no money was received by petitioner in his bank account from the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that as per the charge sheet itself, it is clear that the petitioner held meeting with the complainant informing him about the entire investment scheme, it is thus manifest that the complainant, being a prudent investor should have understood the various risks associated with such investments. 5. Learned counsel submitted that as per the charge sheet itself, it is clear that the petitioner held meeting with the complainant informing him about the entire investment scheme, it is thus manifest that the complainant, being a prudent investor should have understood the various risks associated with such investments. 5. Learned counsel submitted that investigation against the petitioner has been already culminated into filing of charge sheet against him before competent criminal court; the offences are triable by Magistrate; the petitioner is in judicial custody and trial is likely to take long time to conclude; no recovery is due to be effected from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail in the present case. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that co-accused person Chatur Singh (cousin brother of the petitioner), on whose assurance amount was deposited in FX ARENA has yet not been arrested and therefore, if petitioner is enlarged on bail, investigation will be hampered/adversely affected and also, the petitioner will be in a position to influence the witnesses. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner was arrested in furtherance of a look out notice issued by the competent authority, while he was returning from Dubai. Learned counsel submitted that look out notices have been issued against other accused petitioners also. It was further submitted that looking to the magnitude of alleged offences, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) has also been constituted. 7. Drawing attention of the Court towards the disclosure statements of the petitioner recorded under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in the information provided by him has clearly admitted that he had received Rs. 2 lacs out of the aforementioned transactions and a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs has been recovered from his house. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant thus, implored the Court to reject the bail applications filed by the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 9. Having considered rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that allegation against the petitioner is that he pursued the investors to take up the benefit of significantly higher returns on their investments in FX ARENA. Perused the material available on record. 9. Having considered rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that allegation against the petitioner is that he pursued the investors to take up the benefit of significantly higher returns on their investments in FX ARENA. Believing upon aforesaid assurances, the complainant voluntarily invested the amount in the bank accounts of the co-accused persons with an expectation of remarkably huge return of 400%; a sum of Rs.1.50 lacs has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statements of the petitioner. 10. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody for the offences triable by Magistrate. The investigation qua the petitioner has been completed. The challan against him has already been filed before the competent criminal court, therefore, the custody of petitioner is not necessary for further investigation. 11. In view of aforesaid, this Court without commenting upon merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Dinesh Singh Rajpurohit S/o Shri Hari Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.143/2022 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur City (West), (i) provided he surrenders/ deposits his passport with the trial court forthwith and (ii) provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so. 13. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case and none of the observations made herein, by itself, would operate prejudicial to the interest of the parties nor shall have any bearing on the final verdict by the trial court. 14. The petitioner is granted the bail, subject to the following conditions. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order, and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: a) The petitioner shall not leave India during the pendency of the trial, without the permission of the trial Court. 14. The petitioner is granted the bail, subject to the following conditions. The petitioner undertakes to comply with all directions given in this order, and the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner is acceptance of all such conditions: a) The petitioner shall not leave India during the pendency of the trial, without the permission of the trial Court. b) The petitioner undertakes not to contact the complainant and witnesses to threaten them or exert any pressure c) The petitioner shall neither influence nor try to control the investigating officer, in any manner whatsoever. d) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation. e) The petitioner undertakes not to make any inducement, threat or promise, directly or indirectly, to the investigating officer or any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence. f) The petitioner undertakes to attend the trial. 15. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.