AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
The aforesaid MCrCs are being disposed of by this common MCRCA No. 1680 of 2019 & other connected matters order as they are arising out of
Crime Nos.40/2019, 79/2019, 366/2019, 168/2019, 156/2019, 155/2019, 411/2019, 301/2019, 304/2019, 305/2019, 470/2019, 154/2019, registered in
Police Stations : Daurpur, Darima, Ambikapur, Ambagarh Chowki, Ghumka, Lalbag, Basantpur, Khairagarh, Rajnandgaon Kotwali, Udaipur,
Gandhinagar, Lundra, Dhorpur, Kotwali Ambikapur, Civil and Revenue Districts Ambikapur-Surguja, Rajnandgaon for offence under Sections 420,
406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 384 of the IPC; under Sections 3, 4, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act , 1978 ; Section 10
of the Chhattisgarh Nikshepika Ke Hito of Samrakshan Adhiniyam, 2005 and Sections 3, 4 of the Arth Shodhan Vivaran Adhiniyam, 2002.
These bail applications have been filed by set of accused persons against whom large number of complaints have been filed by such depositors who
have invested in the schemes of Anmol India Group Company.
Admittedly, in one such similar crime the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already allowed anticipatory bail vide its order dated 19.09.2019 in
MCRCA No.1177/2019. A copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure A-8.
Learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Devershi Thakur, learned counsel for the objector would submit that exercise of power under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. is barred under Section 15 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Depositor's Interest Act, 2005 MCRCA No. 1680 of 2019 & other
connected matters (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act, 2005'), therefore, these anticipatory bail applications are not maintainable.
True it is that Section 15 of the Act, 2005 creates a bar for exercising power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but it is to be seen that the Coordinate
Bench has specifically dealt with this submission in an elaborate manner in paragraphs 5, 8 and 9 of its order. These paragraphs of the order passed
by the Coordinate Bench are reproduced herein:
In reply counsel for the applicants submits that counsel for the objector has conducted professional misconduct, he himself is the counsel for these
applicants in writ petition No.401/2017, therefore, his objection should not be entertained by this Court. It is also submitted that as the case under
Section 10 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest Act, 2005 is not made out, therefore, the bar under Section 15 of the Act is not applicable. It is
also submitted that under Rule 5 of C.G. Protection of Depositors Rules, 2005 provides that on receipt of complaint from the depositors or otherwise
the Competent Authority may initiate such inquiry as he may deem necessary to satisfy himself as to whether or not any financial establishment has
fraudulently defaulted. No such complaint has been filed before such Competent Authority by the investors, therefore, direct entertainment under
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. by the Special Court is erroneous. Hence, it is prayed that the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.
Considered the submissions made and the contents of the case diary. On perusal of Section 10 of the C.G. Protection of Depositors Interest
MCRCA No. 1680 of 2019 & other connected matters Act, 2005, it is found that penal clause for defaults by financial establishments and the person,
who are to be held responsible are the promoter, partner, director manager or any other person or an employee responsible for the management of or
conducting of the business or affairs or of such financial establishment. There is no mention of any Core Committee or person of such Committee in
this provision. Therefore, the applicability of Section 15 of the C.G. Protection of Depositor's Interest Act, 2005 in this case is a question, which may
be answered in the investigation, which may made by the police. From the perusal of the FIR, it is not found that these applicants gave direct
inducement to any person to make any deposit in the fraudulent schemes and also for the reason that in similar other cases, the agents, who had
worked for this company, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, hence for these reasons, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the applicants.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Since admittedly, the nature of allegations in all the crime numbers are similar, this Court is inclined to allow all the bail applications for releasing the
applicants on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on
each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with the
following conditions:-
MCRCA No. 1680 of 2019 & other connected matters (I)they shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;
(ii)they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicants shall not influence the witnesses during pendency of the trial.