9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 551 - HC - CustomsBail application - misappropriation of huge amount fraudulently - adiversion of huge funds for own benefits - pplicant had acted in connivance with the main accused Vinit Gupta or not - deposit of huge cash which was further transferred, diverted in the name of relatives and companies - whether applicant is entitled to bail on the ground that his son Vinit Gupta is released on bail or not? - two FIRs filed relating to different causes of action - validity of second FIR - HELD THAT - Voluminous documents are recovered during the investigation. Charge sheet has been filed against applicant. Search was conducted at the residential premises of Vinit Gupta on 26th December 2019. Nothing incriminating was recovered. Search was conducted at residence of applicant on 19th March 2020. Nothing was recovered. Statement of Suresh Bhojan was recorded on 25th February 2020. He is working with ICICI Bank. He handed over cheques issued by Vimlesh Dwivedi. Production panchanama was recorded on 29th February 2020 - Statement of Devendra Ghai was recorded on 28th December 2019. He is working with Jaipur Golden Transport as Deputy General Manager. M/s.EXL India Pvt Ltd is sister company of Jaipur Transport. He referred to contract executed with M/s.Rashi Peripherals Pvt.Ltd in 2012. Subsequently contracts were renewed. Vinit Gupta used to follow up with him regarding transportation. M/s.Rashi Peripherals Pvt Ltd had filed Civil Suit at Thane. The accused had deposited cash during the period of offence and transferred funds in the name of his relatives and companies. Thus, the facts are already investigated and further custody of the applicant is not necessary. The offences are triable by Magistrate. The applicant is directed to be released on bail investigated by Economic offences Wing on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount - bail application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Allegations of misappropriation and fraud involving multiple FIRs. 3. The legality of the second FIR. 4. Involvement and role of the applicant in the alleged offenses. 5. Consideration of bail based on the applicant's custody period and the evidence available. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with CR No.454 of 2019, registered for offenses under Sections 406, 407, 408, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was transferred to the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) vide CR No.71 of 2019. 2. Allegations of Misappropriation and Fraud Involving Multiple FIRs The prosecution's case, as detailed in the FIR, involves the complainant company, which imports and sells computer spare parts. The company noticed discrepancies in transportation expenses, leading to an investigation that revealed false bills and misappropriated funds amounting to ?9,01,64,249/-. Vinit Gupta, an Accounts Executive, allegedly conspired with transport companies to divert funds. The applicant, Ramesh Gupta, was implicated in receiving diverted funds. 3. The Legality of the Second FIR The applicant argued that the second FIR (CR No.454 of 2019) was not permissible as it was related to the same transactions as the first FIR (CR No.591 of 2018). The court noted that the genesis of both FIRs is the same, involving different transport companies. The court did not address the issue of quashing the proceedings based on the second FIR's maintainability but acknowledged that the allegations were similar. 4. Involvement and Role of the Applicant in the Alleged Offenses The prosecution alleged that the applicant conspired with his son, Vinit Gupta, to misappropriate funds. The applicant's bank accounts and those of his relatives showed significant cash and cheque deposits. The applicant argued that the funds were from legitimate sources, including his business activities and inheritance. The court noted that the applicant had been in custody for 14 months and that further detention was not warranted, especially since the primary accused, Vinit Gupta, had been granted bail. 5. Consideration of Bail Based on the Applicant's Custody Period and the Evidence Available The court considered the applicant's prolonged custody, the nature of the allegations, and the evidence presented. It was noted that no incriminating evidence was recovered during searches, and the applicant's financial records were already obtained. The court also observed that the investigation into the role of higher officers in the complainant company was lacking. Order: 1. Bail Application No.1202 of 2020 is allowed. 2. The applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with CR No.71 of 2019, investigated by the Economic Offences Wing, on executing a P.R. Bond of ?50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount. 3. The applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station once a month on the first Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. for six months and thereafter once every three months on the first Saturday between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. until further orders. 4. Bail Application No.1202 of 2020 stands disposed of accordingly. 5. Interim Application No.286 of 2021 stands disposed of.
|
