2021 (3) TMI 1446 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of bail - Bike Boat Scheme - huge amount of the investors has been diverted by M/s. G.I.P.L. in the scheme of the applicant - HELD THAT - As is evident from the record, applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He is not the Director, signatory or shareholder in M/s. G.I.P.L. Although allegation against the applicant is that investors' amount of the Bike Boat Scheme launched by M/s. G.I.P.L. was diverted to the applicant's company and application said to have been moved by the applicant's company does not bear the signature of the person moving it and said person had resigned from the post of Director prior to the date of moving the application yet commercial space has been allotted in the scheme launched by the applicant in favour of M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern and possession over the commercial space has also been taken. The said allotted land is reported to be attached by the Enforcement Directorate in the proceedings started against main accused but accounts of the applicant's company have not been attached. In view the facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the applicant to connect him with the present matter, comparing the same with the ingredients of the offences levelled against him in the FIRs in the present matters and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail applications are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail applications filed by accused applicant in cases involving various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant's alleged involvement in diverting investors' money to his company. Legal arguments regarding lack of evidence connecting the applicant to the offenses. Discrepancies in the application for land allotment. Prosecution's contention of sufficient incriminating material against the applicant. Comparison with previous bail orders. Legal analysis of the judgment granting bail.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to bail applications filed by an accused applicant in two cases involving sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, not named in the FIR, is accused of diverting investors' money to his company. The defense argued that the applicant was not involved in the alleged offenses and highlighted his lack of connection to the Bike Boat Scheme launched by another company. The defense emphasized the absence of evidence linking the applicant to the scheme and contended that the prosecution's case was based on false implications. Reference to case laws supported the defense's stance on the lack of evidence against the applicant.

The prosecution, represented by the Additional Advocate General, countered the defense's arguments by presenting evidence suggesting the diversion of funds from the scheme to the applicant's company. The prosecution highlighted discrepancies in the land allotment application and pointed out contradictory views taken by the applicant. The prosecution argued that incriminating material in the case diary and witness statements supported the charges against the applicant. The prosecution also emphasized the significant amount of investors' money allegedly diverted to the applicant's company.

The court carefully considered the rival submissions, reviewed the entire record, and analyzed the facts and circumstances of the case. Despite not expressing any opinion on the case's merits, the court found it a fit case for bail. The court granted bail to the applicant, noting the lack of direct evidence linking him to the offenses and the need to adhere to established principles for granting bail. The court imposed specific conditions for bail, including restrictions on tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and committing similar offenses. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with the bail conditions and warned of consequences for breaching them, allowing the prosecution to move for bail cancellation in case of non-compliance. The judgment also referenced previous bail orders in similar cases to support the decision to grant bail to the applicant.