Vineet Jain v. State

1. Vide this common order, I shall dispose of two bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner in FIR No. 185/2012, Police Station Madhu Vihar and FIR No.184/2012, Police Station Madhu Vihar, both registered under Section 420/406/120B/34 IPG as the allegations inboththe complaints arevirtually the same. 2015:DHC:10866

2. FIR 185/2012 was registered on the basis ofcomplaint ofMr. Nitin Pandey alleging that Vineet Jain and his associates Raj Kumar Jain and Vijit Lai Mathur, Director, M/s. PRJ Enterprises Ltd., having office at 80- 82, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092, induced him that his company had entered into contract with MCD, Delhi and as per the agreement, his company had been allotted acontract from MCD to provide the garbage lifting tipper. However, his company was not having sufficient numbers of tipper so he approached the complainant to engage a tipper against his name in his company and in lieu ofthe said tipper, his company would provide a fixed amount of Rs.14000/- per month for the period of three years. On his inducement, complainant paid total sum of Rs.3,60,000/- through cheque for purchasing oftippers. As per the terms of the agreement, the garbage lifting tipper had to be purchased in the name of the complainant but the garbage lifting tipper was not purchased. Atotal sum ofRs.98,196/- by way ofinstalments up to 31®' August, 2010 was paid and thereafter no instalment was paid. Even four cheques issued by the accused as part payment of his liabilities were also dishonoured. This shows that the accused were having dishonest intention to cheat the complainant from the very beginning.

3. FIRNo. 184/2012 was registered onthebasis of complaint made by Animesh Mukherjee with substantially similar allegations.

4. Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet has already been submitted in the instant case. Raj Kumar Jain, father of the petitioner was arrested and thereafter was released on bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara observing that it does not appear that accused had any intention to cheat the investors. Rather, the accused is a victim of unfortunate circumstances. He was paying the amount of Rs.14,000/- per month to the investors until MCD had cancelled his contract. Co-accused Vijit Lai Mathur, another director of the company was also released on bail. Two another co-accused Shane Alam Zaidi and Sunil Singh were not even arrested. The petitioner has joined investigation which fact finds mentioned in the charge sheet itself. However, it is alleged that he is now absconding. There is no question of petitioner absconding as he had earlier joined investigation and ifthere was any material against him, nothing prevented the police officials to arrest him when he joined the investigation but that was never done. In fact, the petitioner is joining the proceedings before Company Law Board and before Provident Fund Commissioner. Moreover, in thecharge-sheet itself, it is mentioned that the scheme was a valid one and there was no inducement at the inception of the scheme. The only role assigned to the petitioner is that ofassurance given to the investors that the money will be repaid. The pethioner is still ready and willing to join investigation which, however, isnot even required keeping inview the fact that the investigation is already complete and charge sheet has been submitted against four accused persons.

5. The application is opposed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the other co-accused. Petitioner was one ofthe directors ofthe company and was, therefore, beneficiary. The other two directors were arrested and subsequently released on bail. Two of the co-accused who were not arrested were not the directors of the company but only the employees and, therefore, were not arrested. It was not disputed that the pefitioner initially joined investigation but it was submitted that later on he is absconding. Non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Same were stayed by the Sessions Court. In another FIR bearing FIR No. 136/2012 registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi, application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. As such, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner whose interrogation is required.

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR bearing No.136/2012 is distinguishable, inasmuch as, the charge sheet has not yet been filed while in the present two cases, charge sheet has already been submitted and, therefore, the investigation is already complete. Still the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation as and when called upon to do so.

7. Although it is true that in FIR 136/2012, the anticipatory bail application moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 30"" January, 2015, as per the copy ofthe order placed on record by the State. However, the things are somewhat different in the present two applications as it is undisputed that in the present two FIRs, charge sheet has already been submitted. Two directors of the company, namely, R.K. Jain and Vijit Lai Mathur have already been released on bail while two of the co-accused Shane Alam Zaidi and Sunil Singh were not even arrested by the police. It is stated that after the summons were issued to them, on their appearance, they were released on bail. It is not disputed that the petitioner had initially joined investigation and according to learned counsel for the petitioner, he was neverthereafter calledupon tojoin investigation by any of the coercive methods.

8. In view ofthe fact that the investigation is already complete in these two cases as charge sheet has already been submitted against four persons, out of whom two have been released on bail whereas two were not even arrested, on parity, it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a)The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) each with two sureties in the like amount to thesatisfaction of theconcerned SHO/Investigating Officer. (b) He shall deposit his passport with the concerned SHO and shall not leave the country without prior permission ofthe concerned Court.

(c) He shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so by the Investigating Officer of the case.

(d) He shall not tamper with the evidence nor will try to influence any of the witnesses. The application stands disposed ofaccordingly. Order dasti.

SUNITA GUPTA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2015 rs