Deepak Mange Ram Sauda vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, bail petitioner Deepak Mange Ram Sauda, has approached this Court, for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.294, dated 26.9.2022 registered at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh under Ss. 406, 420 and 120 B IPC. Respondent-State has filed status report and Ms. Soumya Sambasivam, SP Mandi, Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, SHO/insp. and HC Roop Lal No. 56, Police Station Balh, have come present with the record. Record perused and returned.

Close scrutiny of the record/status report reveals that person namely Vivek Vasand Rai, Managing Director, Hygeia Fruit & Veg. Proc. Pvt. Ltd. Industrial Area, Ner Chowk, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh lodged a complaint at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P., alleging therein that he has been cheated/duped by the accused under the pretext of providing loan to his industry by a group of people, who claimed themselves to be investment providers and private lenders. Complainant alleged that since he was in dire need of money to repay the loan amount to the Bank, he contacted aforesaid investment providers and money lenders. Complainant alleged that one Shri Gurmeet Singh visited the industry for inspection on 6.1.2022 and asked him to pay upfront amount of Rs.15,000/ - . Complainant alleged that besides making aforesaid payment, certain documents were also taken by the above named persons. Complainant alleged that in the first week of March, 2022, Gurmeet Singh introduced him to Mr. Prabhakar Bura, who further introduced him to Komal Subhash Mehta, who promised to arrange sum of Rs.11.00 Crore for his urgent requirement. Mr. Prabhakar Bura introduced the complainant to one Shyam Arjun Dass Talreja, Proprietor M/s Right Solutions, who assured him to make arrangement of Rs.11.00 Crore, enabling him to repay the bank loan amounting to Rs.8.00 Crore. Shyam Arjun Dass Talreja met the complainant at ITC Maurya, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi and told him that he is expecting Rs.700 Crore as compensation from National Highways Authority of India on account of acquisition of his land for NH in Rajasthan, which he would further disburse to needy persons, on interest. In the aforesaid background, accused named in the FIR, made complainant to deposit Rs.47,40,360/- on account of upfront amount as well as other processing charges. Since despite having received aforesaid huge amount, persons named herein above, failed to make the arrangement of loan, complainant lodged complaint against the persons named herein above. During investigation, police found that M/s Right Solutions was being run by Shyam Arjun Dass Talreja with active connivance and aid of present bail petitioner namely Deepak Mange. Shyam Talreja had employed person namely Gurmeet, Prabhakar Bura and Dushyant Mehta, who were not aware of modus operendi of the proprietor of M/s Right Solutions. Investigation further reveals that number of cases already stand registered against present bail petitioner and Shyam Talreja, who at present is in jail at Mumbai. Investigation further reveals that a sum of Rs.47,40,360/- was deposited by the complainant in the account of Right Solutions, Mumbai, out of which certain amount was subsequently transferred in the bank account of the present bail petitioner, who further transferred certain amount from his bank account to his wife’s bank account, namely Krishna Mange and brother-in- law, Amit Kumar ,who already stand enlarged on bail vide order dated 5.4.2023 in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 811 and 812 of 2023. Since investigation in the case is complete and entire money fraudulently taken by the accused from the complainant stands recovered, bail petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings for grant of regular bail.

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while fairly admitting the factum with regard to filing of the challan in the competent court of law states that though nothing remains to be recovered from the bail petitioner, but keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve leniency. Mr. Kahol, submits that bail petitioner is the kingpin, who apart from defrauding the complainant has defrauded many people in the country and as such, number of cases also stands registered against him across the country. Learned Additional Advocate General states that though sum of Rs. 47,40,360/- allegedly taken by the accused named in the FIR stands recovered, but it may not be in the interest of justice to enlarge the bail petitioner on bail because in the event of grant of bail, he may not only flee from justice, but may indulge in these activities again.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that complainant Vivek Vasand Rai, nowhere directly came in the contact of the bail petitioner, rather he had been dealing with the persons namely Gurmeet Singh, Komal Subhash Mehta and Prabhakar Bura and Shyam Talreja. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that Shyam Talreja after having received sum of Rs. 47,44360, from the complainant further transferred the same in the bank account of the present bail petitioner, who further transferred the same in the bank accounts of his wife and brother in law, who already stand enlarged on bail. Though status report reveals that certain amount came to be transferred in the bank account of the bail petitioner but at present, there is no evidence suggestive of the fact that he introduced the complainant to Shaym Talreja, rather such amount was deposited by the complainant after being persuaded by Sh. Shyam Talreja that he would provide him loan to enable him to clear his loan liability. The question “whether sum transferred in the bank account of the petitioner from the bank account of the Shyam Talreja is the same amount taken from the complainant or bail petitioner had any kind of knowledge of fraudulent transaction inter- se complainant and the accused?”, is to be determined by the court below in the totality of evidence collected on record by the prosecution, but definitely petitioner cannot be allowed to incarcerate in jail for indefinite period during trial on the basis of material available on record.

Leaving everything aside, this court finds that sum of Rs. 47, 44, 360 fraudulently taken by the main accused Shyam Talreja already stands recovered by the police and as such, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the bail petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period during trial. Though prosecution has claimed that petitioner is a Thug and he has been cheating so many people, but there is no cogent and convincing material to substantiate aforesaid plea. Otherwise also, same may not be of much relevance as far as this case is concerned where there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of judgments have held that one is deemed to be innocent, till the time, his/her guilt of proved in accordance with law. Apprehension expressed by learned Additional Advocate General that in the event of being enlarged on bail, bail petitioner may flee from justice or hamper the investigation, can be best met by putting the bail petitioner to stringent conditions.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 227/2018, Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr decided on 6.2.2018 has held that freedom of an individual can not be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 Supreme Court Cases 49 has held that gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta versus CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. Otherwise also, normal rule is of bail and not jail. Apart from above, Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment, which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

The Apex Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar versus Ashis Chatterjee and another (2010) 14 SCC 496, has laid down various principles to be kept in mind, while deciding petition for bail viz. prima facie case, nature and gravity of accusation, punishment involved, apprehension of repetition of offence and witnesses being influenced.

In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, bail petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with following conditions:

(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so, seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application;

(b) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence nor hamper the investigation of the case in any manner whatsoever;

(c) He shall not make any inducement, threat or promises to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or the Police Officer; and

(d) He shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

It is clarified that if the petitioner misuses the liberty or violates any of the conditions imposed upon him, the investigating agency shall be free to move this Court for cancellation of the bail.

Any observations made hereinabove shall not be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain confined to the disposal of this application alone. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner is permitted to produce copy of the order downloaded from the High Court Website and the trial court shall not insist for certified copy of the order, however, it may verify the order from the High Court website or otherwise.