Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) -This bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC against the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 373/2013 in the matter arising out of FIR No. 126/2012 registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under: "Smt. Sarita Yadav W/o Karan Singh filed a complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khetri, inter-alia to the effect that (i) Rohitash Saini, (ii) Dayanand Saini, (iii) Ram Niwas Saini, (iv) Ranvir Singh, (v) H.S. Negi and (vi) Surendra Kumar, being Directors, started a Company under the name and style of Nilgiri Forest Limited, the registered office of which is at Panchkula, Haryana and they opened branches of the said Company at Hissar, Bhiwani, Rewari and other cities. After opening the branches, the accused persons made publicity of the said company after going from village to village.The accused persons showed the papers of the company and said that they were getting higher profits, as such they were giving higher rate of interest. They allured to become member of the company. It was also stated that in the banks and post offices, the money becomes double in 7 years, while this company will pay the double amount in 3-1/2 years i.e. in 42 months and money will be 4 times in 84 months. The complainant relied upon the accused persons and coming to the office of the company situated at Gothda, deposited INR 50,000/- on 31.12.1997. The accused persons prepared Fixed Deposit(s) and gave it to them. The Fixed Deposit(s) was issued under the signatures of accused no.1 Rohitash Saini and using the rubber stamp showing his name, designation etc. Before due date of maturity of the F.D., the accused persons closed the company with a view to grab the people's money and kept on assuring that their money will be paid back, which was said to be held up in other cities. In this manner, the accused persons in the name of the company gave false assurances and then embezzled the said money. On the basis of a fore said report, the First Information Report No. 126/2012 was registered at Police Station, Khetri Nagar for the offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested on 17.11.2013 and since then he is in judicial custody. Thereafter the petitioner moved the bail application under Section 437 CrPC before the Court of Magistrate, which was dismissed. Thereafter he approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri by way of filing bail application under Section 439 CrPC, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 30th November, 2013. Thereafter the petitioner has submitted this bail application under Section 439 CrPC before this Court against the order dated 30th November, 2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr. Abhinav Sharma and Mr. Ravindra Saini have contended that in this case, challan against one of the co-accused persons Rohitash Saini has been filed only for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 4, 5 and 6 of Chit Fund Scheme and Money Laundering Prohibition Act. Learned counsel have further contended that accused petitioner was nominated as Director of the said Company on 21st October, 1992 and he resigned from the post on 24th January, 1993 and the same was accepted by the Board of the Company on 26th January, 1993. They have further contended that accused petitioner remained in the Books of Accounts as Director only for a period of 3 months' and that too much earlier to the date when the complainant is alleged to have deposited the money with the company. They have further contended that it is clear from the complaint that the money was deposited in the company on 31st December, 1997, while resignation of the accused petitioner had already been accepted on 26th January, 1993. They have further contended that Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rewari had filed an affidavit alongwith the status report in the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr. Misc. Case No. 39032 of 2012 on 5th January, 2013. In that case, the accused petitioner was made respondent no.8. The police had conducted investigation in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Haryana about the status of the various accused persons and it was reported that nothing incriminating had surfaced against him. Further, they have drawn the attention of this Court towards Section 283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. They have further contended that in another case No. M-22752 of 2011, Shri Jai Prakash, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hansi had also submitted an affidavit before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein he affirmed that the accused petitioner after resignation in the year 1993, had no concern with the business. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, no case is made out against the accused petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. They have further contended that the complainant has also filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnol regarding the same transaction of INR 50,000/-. They have further contended that in this complaint filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the judgment has been passed that the complainant deposited the sum of INR 50,000/- in the branch office of the company at Rewari Road, Narnaul, as such the FIR and statement made therein regarding depositing of the money at Gothda, Khetri Nagar office of the company, are absolutely false and they are with ulterior motive. They have further contended that accused petitioner is an Advocate by profession and he has conducted many cases against the aforesaid company, as such he has been falsely implicated in this case. They have further contended that as per the Companies Act, in such cases, it is only the company, which is liable and even the Director cannot be held responsible more particularly when the Company has received the money and failed to repay the same, hence the bail application of the petitioner should be accepted and the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.;