Sonu Gupta vs Union Territory Of J&K

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of arrest in F.I.R. No. 233/2019 registered with Police Station, R. S. Pura, Jammu under Section 420 IPC on

a complaint filed by Tirath Singh. It is stated that the accused Sonu Gupta, Shashi Gupta and Gourav Gupta have committed fraud with the

complainant and other persons as the accused have collected the paddy and wheat from them and issued receipts to the concerned persons with

regard to the same but failed to pay the amount for the crop. The accused is stated to be running Firm under the Name and Style of Ashoka Traders.

The accused have swindled crores of rupees of the persons who had deposited their crop with the accused. It may be mentioned that the investigation

was later on transferred to the Crime Branch, Jammu.

The objections to the application have been filed. It is submitted in the objections that the accused-petitioner is involved in a serious offence as he

kept the crop worth crores of rupees which was taken from the poor farmers. The investigation reveals that an amount of rupees more than two

crores forty lakhs has been swindled by the petitioner. The statements of some of the witnesses have been recorded which reveal the involvement of

the accused in the matter. It is also submitted that the accused is not cooperating with the Investigating Agency. Along with the objections the

respondent has annexed particulars of the persons who have recorded their statements before the Investigating Officer and the amount to which they

are entitled to from the accused persons. The receipts have also been issued to the farmers who deposited their crop with the accused. It is made out

from the record that the accused was granted interim bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, though the application for bail

was later dismissed by the said court vide order dated 10.04.2021.

During course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no case is made out against the petitioner herein. The custody of

the petitioner is not required as the investigation is almost complete as per the objections filed by the respondent before the Court of learned 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in the application filed for bail before the said court. The complainant Tirath Singh is business rival of the petitioner

and that is why he got the case registered against him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has cooperated with the

Investigating Agency and there is no case for the respondent to seek custody of the petitioner.

Mr. Raman Sharma, learned AAG has argued that the petitioner had though procured crop from the farmers yet he failed to pay the price of the

crop to those farmers and the amount runs into crores of rupees. Some of the farmers are yet to record their statements before the Investigating

Officer and which may reveal more money which the petitioner owes to the farmers. It is emphatically submitted on behalf of the respondent that the

investigation is still going on in the matter and that the petitioner has not cooperated with the Investigating Agency.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2014 SC 2756 titled Arnesh

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. in support of his contentions.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2019) SC 24 titled

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement.

There cannot be any dispute with what has been held by the Apex Court in both the judgments. However each case has its peculiar facts which

determine the outcome of the bail application.

In the present case, the allegation against the petitioner-accused is that despite receiving the crop from number of farmers he failed to pay the price

of the same to those farmers. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the present case is outcome of the business rivalry between the

complainant-Tirath Singh and the petitioner herein cannot be entertained as far as the present application is concerned. The enquiry with regard to the

alleged rivalry is not to be held by this Court.

The respondent while filing the objections has annexed the statement wherein the names of the farmers who have so far recorded their statements

before the Investigating Officer has been mentioned. It also depicts the receipts with regard to obtaining of crops from those persons and also the

money which is due to them from the petitioner. The amount runs into more than two crores forty lakhs as per the statement to which the farmers

have been duped. It also appears that certain record has been seized and more is required to be seized as part of investigation. No doubt the offence

which has been slapped upon the petitioner the punishment for the same is upto seven years but it does not mean that the petitioner-accused person

can seek bail merely on that ground if the facts of the case do make out that custody of the accused is required in the case. The petitioner-accused

cannot be given concession of anticipatory bail as he is required to be investigated for the alleged fraud he has committed with the farmers.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner was granted interim bail by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Jammu though the same was later on dismissed on merits. The petitioner during the course of interim bail attended the investigation and there

was no reason not to allow his bail application. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner was not cooperating with the

investigation even during interim bail granted by the aforesaid court. The court does not find any reason to disbelieve the submission of the learned

counsel for the respondent in this regard.

The fact that the petitioner is stated to be involved in duping farmers of crores of rupees as the petitioner failed to pay the amount for the crop

they have deposited with the petitioner, the investigation is still going on in the case and that the petitioner has failed to cooperate with the Investigating

Agency, the court does not find sufficient ground to grant bail in anticipation of arrest to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the custody of the

petitioner is not required by Investigating Agency. The present petition is without merit and is dismissed.