CHARANJEET SINGH DANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks bail. He has been behind bars since 11.01.2018. On 18.12.2018 and 16.01.2019, the Court had passed the following orders:-

(2.) From the police record itself what is evident that no monies seem to have been transferred into the account of the petitioner. He states that he did not even receive any salary or benefits from the company, nor was he a signatory to any benefits from the transaction or collection of monies from various buyers. The petitioner states that only because his daughter was married to the main accused-Tarun Shienh, was he made an Additional Director, his role was simply of a silent Director and without any power or authority, because the absolute power and management is related with Tarun Shienh. In any case the petitioner resigned from the said company on 13.04.2016 i.e. seven months prior to the registration of FIR. The Status Report itself shows that an amount of Rs. 65 lacs was transferred into the account of Ms. Laxmi Rajput for the reasons best known to Tarun Shienh. The petitioner is 69 years old and has no criminal antecedents. Chargesheet has been filed. The petitioner undertakes not to evade the process of law and to be available before the Trial Court on every date when he is so required.

(3.) Mr. G.M. Farooqui, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the extensive fraud upon innocent citizens was a collusive enterprise of the accused persons; that the petitioner remained a part of the corporate management during the course of receipt of monies and with Tarun Shienh who has not been traceable for many years, therefore the petitioner is the only link with the company.