9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manner as the accused. This Court feels that the order passed by the Sessions Judge is legal and in accordance with law and that there is no ground much less cogent or overwhelming ground to set aside the same and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.3 to 5, thus, the present petition stands dismissed and order dated 01.10.2020 is upheld. Petition dismissed. - CRM-M-33202-2020 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 1-9-2021 - Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl, J. Mr. B.S. Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Satvik Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Gokhale, Advocate and Ms. Drishti Harplani, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER VIKAS BAHL, J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide order dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P- 11) by the Sessions Judge, Rewari in FIR No.63 dated 17.02.2020 registered under Sections 420, 406, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er dated 24.09.2019 except the two purchase orders dated 17.10.2019 which were cancelled. It was also observed that the complainant company had already filed the claim before the NCLT and all the documents relating to the transaction are in the office of company which has been taken over by the IRP and are under his control and custody. It was further observed that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are more than 70 years of age and were not even the active Directors of the company and that the whole case was based on documentary evidence and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners/respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein was not required and thus, the concession of anticipatory bail was granted to respondent Nos.3 to 5 herein,subject to the condition of furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer and with a further condition that they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court and they shall not make any inducement/threat/promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case and shall join further investigation as and when required. Aggrieved against the abovesaid order, the complainant-Joginder Singh, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e impugned order is perverse inasmuch as reference has been made to the letter dated 23.10.2019, although there is no such letter on record, and even the observation to the effect that the present dispute is a dispute of rendition of accounts between the parties is also perverse as the present dispute cannot be said to be a dispute of rendition of accounts. It is also argued that the accused persons have neither got the money nor the supply recovered. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna @ Munna Jaiswal and another, reported as 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 529, to contend that it is always open for the complainant to question the order granting the bail if the order is not validly passed. Para 7 of the said judgment is reproduced hereasunder:- 7. It is now a settled law that complainant can always question the order granting bail if the said order is not validly passed. It is not as if once a bail is granted by any court, the only way is to get it cancelled on account of its misuse. The bail order can be tested on merits also. In our opinion, therefore, the complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard has been made to letter dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure P-6) which is attached with the present petition itself, as per which, it is the accused persons who have informed the complainant company about the passing of the order by the NCLT and the factum that since the Board of Directors stood suspended, the cheques which had been issued were not to be presented. To the similar effect is the letter dated 20.11.2019 (Annexure P-7, Page 40 of the paper book). Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the order dated 24.09.2019 was uploaded on the website only in the second week of October, 2019 and immediately after understanding the true import of the Order, the purchase order dated 17.10.2019 was cancelled and the abovesaid letters dated 30.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 were written. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Annexure R-3/4 attached alongwith the reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5, which shows the List of Creditors as on 24.09.2019 and has highlighted the fact that the complainant company had lodged its complaint before the IRP and its name figures at Sr. No.4 in Column No.B under the heading Operational Creditors and the amount claimed by the compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from the principles on which bail already granted would be cancelled. To substantiate the same, the Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in Mahant Chand Nath Yogi Vs. State of Haryana, reported as 2003 (1) SCC 326. Reference has also been made to Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported as 1995(1) SCC 349. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record and is of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rewari deserves to be upheld. The Hon ble Apex Court in Mahant Chand Nath Yogi (Supra) has observed in Paragraph 17 as under: 17. This Court in Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra and another (2000 SCC (Cri) 1508) following the principles stated in Dolat Ram and others v. State of Haryana, [(1995) 1 SCC 349] has reiterated that there is a distinction between rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted. Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai was uploaded on the website and the true impact of the same was understood and in case, the accused persons had any fraudulent intention, then they would not have written Letters dated 30.10.2019 and 20.11.2019 informing the complainant-company about the passing of the aforesaid orders. With respect to the allegation that the goods were also received on 25.09.2019, 27.09.2019 and 03.10.2019, the defense put up is that the same were with respect to purchase orders dated 09.07.2019, 23.08.2019 and 09.09.2019 (Annexure P-3), which were prior to the passing of the Order of the NCLT, Mumbai, the copy of which order was only made available on the website in the second week of October after which no supplies were received. At any rate, the said orders were placed in the name of the accused-company and not in the individual names of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and all the supplies made would be a part of the assets of the accused-company which is under the control and custody of the IRP and regarding which the claim to the tune of ₹ 1,85,50,287/-has already been made by the complainant company, as is apparent from Annexure R-3/4, and its name fig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Prosecutor for the State. ASI Sandeep Kumar, PS Dharuhera in person. Sh. Vivek Tanwar, counsel for the respondents/ accused. Sh. Vivek Tanwar, counsel for the respondents/accused appeared in person. ASI Sandeep Kumar with learned Public Prosecutor for the State vide his separate statement stated that the respondents in the present case have already joined into investigation and in view of the same, they do not wish to pursue with the application for cancellation of bail of applicants/accused Amit SureshmalLodha, SureshmalLodha and InduLodha and withdrawn the same. Heard. In view of the statement, present application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. January 04, 2021 Moreover, the Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent nos. 3 to 5 has stated that the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are and will always be ready to join the investigation and to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Further, a period of 8 months has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order and there are no allegations against the answering respondents that they are either trying to influence the witnesses or have misus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the present case are substantially different inasmuch as,even as per the case of the prosecution, there were business dealings between the complainant company and the accused persons and the case has civil tappings and there is no allegation of misappropriation of public funds nor the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are attracted in the present case, nor the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 conducted themselves in the manner as the accused in the above-cited case had. Even the argument raised by the learned Senior Counsel that the observation made by the Sessions Judge in the impugned Order to the effect that two purchase orders were cancelled vide letter dated 23.10.2019, is incorrect,inasmuch as there is no such letter dated 23.10.2019 is inconsequential inasmuch as it is the admitted case of the parties that the said purchase orders dated 17.10.2019 were in fact cancelled and no goods were ever supplied to the accused persons. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and also the legal position, this Court feels that the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 01.10.2020 (Annexure P-11) is legal and in accordance with law and that there is no ground much less coge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
