AJEET KUMAR URF ADESH BHATI Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-6
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
March 04,2021
Ajeet Kumar Urf Adesh Bhati
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.
Respondents
JUDGEMENT
HONBLE OM PRAKASH-VII,J. -
(1.) Heard Shri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tej Bahadur Rai and Shri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned AGA for the State.
(2.) The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Ajeet Kumar alias Adesh Bhati in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below :(i) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8605 of 2020 in case crime no. 361 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(ii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7311 of 2020 in case crime no. 602 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 467, 120-B, 468, 471, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(iii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7040 of 2020 in case crime no. 603 of 2019, under Sections 420, 409, 201, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(iv) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7308 of 2020 in case crime no. 674 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406, 506, 467, 468, 471, 509, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(v). Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7309 of 2020 in case crime no. 592 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(vi) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7364 of 2020 in case crime no. 697 of 2019, under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 467, 468, 471, 409, 506, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(vii) Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9746 of 2020 in case crime no. 340 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468,m 409, 471, 120-B, 201 IPC, Police Station Dadri, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that although several criminal cases have been lodged against the applicant showing him the Director of the company concerned but he was not Director at any point of time of the company concerned. Applicant was only associated with the main accused. Investment was also made by the applicant in the Bike Boat Scheme. Assured profit was not being returned to the applicant as per scheme by the company, as agreed between them, and in lieu of that some post dated cheques were issued by the company in favour of the applicant which did not encash. Thus, applicant himself is the sufferer in the present matters. Amount disclosed in the Counter Affidavit/Supplementary Counter Affidavit said to have been credited in the account of the applicant was the amount returned by the company in lieu of investment made in the scheme. No active role has been assigned to the applicant in any of the FIR lodged against him. It is next contended that the applicant is in jail for the last about one and half year. No prima facie case is made out. Amount invested by the investors was deposited by them in the account of the company concerned or its sister's company to which the applicant has no concern. Properties said to have been purchased by the applicant were also not purchased out of the proceeds of the invested amount of the investors of the Bike Boat Scheme. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the bail orders passed in respect of the co-accused and further argued that Sanjay Goyal, who was Director in the company concerned (annexure no. -6) has been released on bail in some cases. Applicant has also no access to the record. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit and argued that accounts disclosed in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit only reveals that amount was invested by the applicant in the aforesaid scheme and assured profit was returned in the account of the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence are lacking in the present matter. Criminal intention to attract the offences levelled against the applicant in the present matter are also lacking. Applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter on the basis that some amount has been credited in his account by the company concerned. Thus, it was further argued that confessional statement said to have been made before the investigating agency will also not be sufficient to connect the applicant in the present matter as it cannot be read in evidence. Next contention is that although some new pleas have been taken in the rejoinder affidavit yet same are not barred, even oral pleas can also be taken at the time of hearing the bail application. Thus, referring to the entire documents annexed with the application, counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties and also the role assigned to the applicant in the present matters, prayer for bail was made.;
(2.) The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Ajeet Kumar alias Adesh Bhati in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are given below :
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that although several criminal cases have been lodged against the applicant showing him the Director of the company concerned but he was not Director at any point of time of the company concerned. Applicant was only associated with the main accused. Investment was also made by the applicant in the Bike Boat Scheme. Assured profit was not being returned to the applicant as per scheme by the company, as agreed between them, and in lieu of that some post dated cheques were issued by the company in favour of the applicant which did not encash. Thus, applicant himself is the sufferer in the present matters. Amount disclosed in the Counter Affidavit/Supplementary Counter Affidavit said to have been credited in the account of the applicant was the amount returned by the company in lieu of investment made in the scheme. No active role has been assigned to the applicant in any of the FIR lodged against him. It is next contended that the applicant is in jail for the last about one and half year. No prima facie case is made out. Amount invested by the investors was deposited by them in the account of the company concerned or its sister's company to which the applicant has no concern. Properties said to have been purchased by the applicant were also not purchased out of the proceeds of the invested amount of the investors of the Bike Boat Scheme. At this juncture learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the bail orders passed in respect of the co-accused and further argued that Sanjay Goyal, who was Director in the company concerned (annexure no. -6) has been released on bail in some cases. Applicant has also no access to the record. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit and argued that accounts disclosed in the Supplementary Counter Affidavit only reveals that amount was invested by the applicant in the aforesaid scheme and assured profit was returned in the account of the applicant. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence are lacking in the present matter. Criminal intention to attract the offences levelled against the applicant in the present matter are also lacking. Applicant cannot be prosecuted in the present matter on the basis that some amount has been credited in his account by the company concerned. Thus, it was further argued that confessional statement said to have been made before the investigating agency will also not be sufficient to connect the applicant in the present matter as it cannot be read in evidence. Next contention is that although some new pleas have been taken in the rejoinder affidavit yet same are not barred, even oral pleas can also be taken at the time of hearing the bail application. Thus, referring to the entire documents annexed with the application, counter and rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties and also the role assigned to the applicant in the present matters, prayer for bail was made.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.