SHARAD KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application moved under Section 439 Cr. P.C., r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in company petition No. 238/2005, filed by one Ms. Manjit Kaur, against M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd., directions were given by Justice Gita Mittal vide order dated 3.10.2008 to Crime Branch to conduct investigation into the existence/address/whereabouts of Ms. Manjit Kaur daughter of Shri Gyan Singh, R/o E -208, Kavi Nagar Industrial Area, Ghaziabad (U.P). The court also directed investigation from the aspect of conspiracy between Ms. Manjit Kaur and Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd., as well as its Ex -directors Mr. R.K. Nanda and Smt. Promila Nanda. Pursuant to the said directions, the Crime Branch, Delhi Police carried out the investigation and found that Ms. Manjit Kaur does not reside at the given address and M/s. Kumar security Syndicate of which Ms. Manjit Kaur claimed to be the sole proprietor was also found to be non -existent firm. It was also found by the Crime Branch that all entries regarding supply of security guards to M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. seem to be merely paper entries, so much so even the advocate namely Mr. Vishesh Jain on whose letter head and signatures the said statutory notice under Section 434 of Company Act to M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. was sent prior to filing of the company petition was also found to be incorrect. The Crime Branch thus found that the papers submitted by the parties, before the High court in the company petition bearing No. 238/2005 do not seem to be genuine and there appears to be a clear nexus between advocates and Directors of M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. Based on this facts, the Crime Branch registered the said FIR against the present petitioner and against Mr. R.K. Nanda, Ex -director of M/s. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) ON facts counsel submits that at the most the present petitioner is the beneficiary of Rs. 1.25 lakhs only, which amount was paid to Ms. Manjit Kaur in the company petition No. 238/2005 filed by her against M/s Durga Builders. Counsel further submits that the worse allegation against the petitioner could be that he was illegally and unauthorisedly running the firm under the name of M/s Kumar Security Syndicate in violation of the professional ethics for which the action is contemplated under the Advocates Act. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had no control over the actions of M/s Durga Builders or its management as he was merely representing M/s Durga Builders in the said case and in some other cases. Counsel also submits that in any event the petitioner was not the beneficiary of seeking winding up of the said company. Counsel also contends that the petitioner himself had issued public notice so as to find and ascertain the whereabouts of Manjeet Kaur vide public notice dated 10th December, 2008 in various newspapers. Ms. Manjeet Kaur was being represented by two different counsels in relation to the said company proceedings, which led the Court to make certain observations on 3rd October. Counsel further submits that the petitioner shall abide by any of the terms imposed by this Court. The petitioner has also unblemished record since the time of the joining of the legal profession.