NARESH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been Filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail-to the Petitioner Mr, Naresh Sharma who is accused to have committed offences under Sections 120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme, (Banning ) Act, 1978. Even though the Petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FIR No. 219/99 registered at Chittranjan Park Police Station, he is one of the accused persons sent up for trial as per the charge sheet filed in the Court on 20.9.99. The other accused persons sent up for trial are Lambert Kroeger, Dalip Arora, Ashok Chatterjee and M/s Maple Leaf Trading International (P) Ltd. Though the Petitioner was granted interim bail by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the ground of illness of his wide his application for regular bail was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. His application for bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge also.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a mere perusal of the charge sheet would disclose that no offence under Section 409 or 120B of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the Petitioner. He also contended that there is no prima facie case against the Petitioner under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code or under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning ) Act. The main argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had no role in registering the company by name M/s Mapie Leaf Trading International (P) Ltd. or in conceiving and formulating the Multi-level Gold Marketing Programme of the company and that the Petitioner was only one of the persons who became members (business partners) by investing their own money and worked for enrolling new business partners and obtained commission for their work as per the contract with the company.

(3.) Even according .to the Respondent the Petitioner was only one of the Academic Instructors who induced several persons to join the scheme as business partners and to invest their money in Maple Leaf Gold Trading Scheme. It is alleged that in the said process the Petitioner earned lakhs of rupees as commission. The Petitioner was arrested on 10.7.1999 and since then he has been in judicial custody except for the period when he was released on interim bail. There is no allegation that he misused the interim bail. The investigation had been completed and charge sheet was filed in Court on 20.9.1999. In the nature and circumstances of this case, I do not find any reason for a reasonable apprehension that the Petitioner will flee from justice or tamper with evidence if he is released on bail. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner's sister Mrs. Nalini Mishra is also one of the accused persons and that she is absconding and evading arrest. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the name of Mrs. Nalini Mishra is not shown in column No. 2 of the charge sheet. He also submitted that Mrs. Nalini Mishra also was only a Academic Instructor like the Petitioner. He further submitted that the fact that Mrs. Nalini Mishra is absconding cannot be a valid ground for detaining the Petitioner in person indefinitely. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am also of the view that the fact that Mrs. Nalini Mishra is absconding and evading arrest is not sufficient justification for denying bail to the Petitioner. Considering the nature of the offences alleged against the Petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case in the light of the legal position stated by the Supreme Court in the State v. Captain Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 253, Gurcharan Singh & Others v. State reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 179, Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Others v. Public Prosecutor reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 429, Miss Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1016, Mohan Singh v. Union Territory , Chandigarh reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1095 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632 , I am of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.