Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BAIL APPLN.2800/2014
VINEET JAIN
STATE
Through:
BAIL APPLN.2800/2014
VINEET JAIN
STATE
Through:
VERSUS
Through:
; Appellant Mr Gaurav Kakar and Ms Bhawna Chopra, Advs.
Respondent Mr O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
; Appellant Mr Gaurav Kakar and Ms Bhawna Chopra, Advs.
Respondent Mr O.P. Saxena, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
30.01.2015 By virtue ofthis application under Section 438 ofCr.PC,the petitioner-Vineet
Jain is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 136/2012 under Sections
406/420/506/120B/34IPG registered atPolice Station Madhu Vihar,Delhi.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Kusum Sharma wherein she alleged that Raj Kumar Jain, Director ofM/s PRJ Enterprises Ltd.
(for short,'PRJ') and his associates induced her that his company has entered into a contact with MCD,Delhi and as per the agreement his company was allotted a contract from MCD to provide the garbage-lifting tipper/vehicle/three wheeler hydraulic tempo.
However, his company was not having sufficient number of tippers/vehicles. So, he approached the complainantto engage a tipper against his name in his company and in lieu ofthe said tipper, his company would provide a fixed amount of Rs.14,000/- per month for the period ofthree years.On hisinducement,the complainant paid atotal sum ofRs.3.60 lac for purchasing oftipper in his name.An agreement between PRJ and the complainantwasmade,butthe vehicle wasnotpurchased bythe accused persons.Atotal sum of Rs.89,000/- approximately was paid to the complainant to gain her faith but thereafter no payment was made and the accused persons misappropriated the money invested by the complainant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only a director in the company;besidesthathe has no roleto play.He is noteven ashareholder
2015:DHC:10563 in the company.The petitioner is noteven a party to the agreement allegedly entered into by the company and the complainant.Even no cheque has been signed by him.The entire allegations are qua R.K.Jain,who was granted anticipatory bail in this case,however,he has been arrested in another case. After filing of this petition for grant of anticipatory bail, he was granted interim protection and was directed to join investigation. He sent a letter to the Investigating Officer offering himselftojoin investigation,but he was never called which shows that his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is still ready and willing tojoin investigation as such he be released on bail.
The application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It was submitted that the investigation reveals that PRJ entered into a contract/agreement to provide vehicles for lifting garbage from MCD wards. After that
PRJ made several contracts with general public. Later on, the directors did not comply the terms ofthe contract as such MCD terminated the contract. After termination ofthe contract, PRJ defaulted in paying the amount to the victims. They neither returned the amount nor the vehicles to the victims. This indicates their intention ofcollecting funds from the general public and then usurping the same.As per the investigation carried out till date,there are 105 investors who invested in PRJ. In some cases, even the vehicles were not purchased by PRJ,but an amount ofRs.3.60 lac each as costs of vehicle was taken from the victims. In some cases, vehicles were purchased but the same were not returned to the investors and whenthey demanded the samefrom PRJ,they declined.The criminal record of the directors was filed to show that they are involved in two other cases besides the instant case.The total number ofvictims who has been defrauded is 105 and the victims have been cheated to the extent ofRs.5,61,60,000/-. The detailed list of investors/victims have also been armexed as Annexures — B, C and D. It is further submitted that the accused - Vineet Jain (present petitioner) was the director of the accused company as per the Registrar of Companies. Although he had joined investigation buthe did notcooperate inthe same.He did notdisclosethefactsregarding
MCD's Tipper Scheme nor did he disclose the trail ofcheated money. The documents regarding auto tippers scheme are yet to be recovered. This is a multi-victim case.
Accused personsinduced the victimsfor investing in the company with the assurances of giving handsome returns and therefore custodial interrogation is required for establishing the criminal conspiracy.
Asregards the other FlRs in which the petitioner is wanted alongwith co-accused, it is submitted that separate FlRs could not have been registered as all the investors/complainants were allegedly cheated in pursuant to a single conspiracy which constitutes the same transactions. Reliance was placed on an order dated 30.08.2012 passed by this Courtin Crl. MC No.1369/2010.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a director ofPRJ.It is also not in dispute that PRJ entered into an agreement with MCD in the year 2009 for supply oftippers to
MCD by virtue of an agreement dated 10.03.2010. In the bail application itself, it is stated that the agreement entered by PRJ was a large-scale work and involved deployment of 125-150 tippers alongwith manual labours for picking up the garbage / wastage from various colonies and that in order to meet the business and contractual obligations,R.K. Jain(father ofthe petitioner)entered into various contacts with private investors in the form ofHire-Purchase-Agreements under a tentative scheme drawn and floated by him. A large number of people who were interested in the offers of deploymentoftippers approached Mr R.K.Jain and entered into various agreements with the company.However,it is alleged that with the cancellation ofthe contract with MCD, business ofthe company came to a standstill due to which the company came under a lot of financial distress. Mr R.K. Jain entered into various settlement agreements with the investors and issued cheques to them for settlement ofdues,however,the cheques were dishonoured due to lack offunds. The averments made in the bail application reflect that the averments made in the complaint are admitted,however,the only plea taken by the petitioner is that he was never involved in the entire transaction and it was done by his father Mr R.K.Jain as he was not involved in the business ofthe company and is also not even a shareholder ofthe company. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has placed on record the statements ofcomplainant-Smt. Kusum Sharma and Smt. R.
Sharma recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC wherein they have stated that in connection with the agreement they used to visit the office ofPRJ.In the absence ofMr R.K. Jain, Vineet Jain(petitioner) and Vineet Lai used to meet them and inform about the scheme which shows that the petitioner was actively involved in the entire scheme. A number of investors have been duped bythe company ofwhich the petitioner is one ofthe directors.
Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is accordingly dismissed. The interim protection granted to the petitioner on
24.12.2014 and extended thereafter stands vacated.
The bail application stands disposed ofaccordingly. ndipt-
SUNITA GUPTA,J JANUARY 30,2015/..
30.01.2015 By virtue ofthis application under Section 438 ofCr.PC,the petitioner-Vineet
Jain is seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 136/2012 under Sections
406/420/506/120B/34IPG registered atPolice Station Madhu Vihar,Delhi.
The FIR in the instant case was registered on the complaint of Smt. Kusum Sharma wherein she alleged that Raj Kumar Jain, Director ofM/s PRJ Enterprises Ltd.
(for short,'PRJ') and his associates induced her that his company has entered into a contact with MCD,Delhi and as per the agreement his company was allotted a contract from MCD to provide the garbage-lifting tipper/vehicle/three wheeler hydraulic tempo.
However, his company was not having sufficient number of tippers/vehicles. So, he approached the complainantto engage a tipper against his name in his company and in lieu ofthe said tipper, his company would provide a fixed amount of Rs.14,000/- per month for the period ofthree years.On hisinducement,the complainant paid atotal sum ofRs.3.60 lac for purchasing oftipper in his name.An agreement between PRJ and the complainantwasmade,butthe vehicle wasnotpurchased bythe accused persons.Atotal sum of Rs.89,000/- approximately was paid to the complainant to gain her faith but thereafter no payment was made and the accused persons misappropriated the money invested by the complainant.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only a director in the company;besidesthathe has no roleto play.He is noteven ashareholder
2015:DHC:10563 in the company.The petitioner is noteven a party to the agreement allegedly entered into by the company and the complainant.Even no cheque has been signed by him.The entire allegations are qua R.K.Jain,who was granted anticipatory bail in this case,however,he has been arrested in another case. After filing of this petition for grant of anticipatory bail, he was granted interim protection and was directed to join investigation. He sent a letter to the Investigating Officer offering himselftojoin investigation,but he was never called which shows that his custodial interrogation is not required. The petitioner is still ready and willing tojoin investigation as such he be released on bail.
The application is vehemently opposed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. It was submitted that the investigation reveals that PRJ entered into a contract/agreement to provide vehicles for lifting garbage from MCD wards. After that
PRJ made several contracts with general public. Later on, the directors did not comply the terms ofthe contract as such MCD terminated the contract. After termination ofthe contract, PRJ defaulted in paying the amount to the victims. They neither returned the amount nor the vehicles to the victims. This indicates their intention ofcollecting funds from the general public and then usurping the same.As per the investigation carried out till date,there are 105 investors who invested in PRJ. In some cases, even the vehicles were not purchased by PRJ,but an amount ofRs.3.60 lac each as costs of vehicle was taken from the victims. In some cases, vehicles were purchased but the same were not returned to the investors and whenthey demanded the samefrom PRJ,they declined.The criminal record of the directors was filed to show that they are involved in two other cases besides the instant case.The total number ofvictims who has been defrauded is 105 and the victims have been cheated to the extent ofRs.5,61,60,000/-. The detailed list of investors/victims have also been armexed as Annexures — B, C and D. It is further submitted that the accused - Vineet Jain (present petitioner) was the director of the accused company as per the Registrar of Companies. Although he had joined investigation buthe did notcooperate inthe same.He did notdisclosethefactsregarding
MCD's Tipper Scheme nor did he disclose the trail ofcheated money. The documents regarding auto tippers scheme are yet to be recovered. This is a multi-victim case.
Accused personsinduced the victimsfor investing in the company with the assurances of giving handsome returns and therefore custodial interrogation is required for establishing the criminal conspiracy.
Asregards the other FlRs in which the petitioner is wanted alongwith co-accused, it is submitted that separate FlRs could not have been registered as all the investors/complainants were allegedly cheated in pursuant to a single conspiracy which constitutes the same transactions. Reliance was placed on an order dated 30.08.2012 passed by this Courtin Crl. MC No.1369/2010.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a director ofPRJ.It is also not in dispute that PRJ entered into an agreement with MCD in the year 2009 for supply oftippers to
MCD by virtue of an agreement dated 10.03.2010. In the bail application itself, it is stated that the agreement entered by PRJ was a large-scale work and involved deployment of 125-150 tippers alongwith manual labours for picking up the garbage / wastage from various colonies and that in order to meet the business and contractual obligations,R.K. Jain(father ofthe petitioner)entered into various contacts with private investors in the form ofHire-Purchase-Agreements under a tentative scheme drawn and floated by him. A large number of people who were interested in the offers of deploymentoftippers approached Mr R.K.Jain and entered into various agreements with the company.However,it is alleged that with the cancellation ofthe contract with MCD, business ofthe company came to a standstill due to which the company came under a lot of financial distress. Mr R.K. Jain entered into various settlement agreements with the investors and issued cheques to them for settlement ofdues,however,the cheques were dishonoured due to lack offunds. The averments made in the bail application reflect that the averments made in the complaint are admitted,however,the only plea taken by the petitioner is that he was never involved in the entire transaction and it was done by his father Mr R.K.Jain as he was not involved in the business ofthe company and is also not even a shareholder ofthe company. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has placed on record the statements ofcomplainant-Smt. Kusum Sharma and Smt. R.
Sharma recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC wherein they have stated that in connection with the agreement they used to visit the office ofPRJ.In the absence ofMr R.K. Jain, Vineet Jain(petitioner) and Vineet Lai used to meet them and inform about the scheme which shows that the petitioner was actively involved in the entire scheme. A number of investors have been duped bythe company ofwhich the petitioner is one ofthe directors.
Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The application is accordingly dismissed. The interim protection granted to the petitioner on
24.12.2014 and extended thereafter stands vacated.
The bail application stands disposed ofaccordingly. ndipt-
SUNITA GUPTA,J JANUARY 30,2015/..
JUDGMENT