DUSHYANT KUMAR ARYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Viresh Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Shri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated by lodging FIR through application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations that the first informant Teekam Singh deposited Rs.4,40,000/- with the applicant finance company M/s. Vaishno Financiers on interest @ 3% per month and the same was not returned and when he demanded the said money, he was threatened of life by the applicant; that the applicant has been falsely implicated by the first informant Teekam Singh with an intention to put pressure on him for entering into compromise in the matter of prosecution of his relative, Mukesh Kumar, Manager of Haldaur Branch of the firm, and saving him from the clutches of law; that M/s. Vaishno Financiers is a partnership firm of the applicant and co-accused Narendra Singh carrying on business of general finance to two wheelers, four wheelers, electronic goods and housing loan; that the above firm does not accept deposits from general public as mentioned in partnership deed at Annexure 2; that Mukesh Kumar was the Manager of firm at Haldaur Branch and in collusion with his relatives collected money from so many people and embezzled the same; that above Mukesh Kumar has issued forged passbooks and also made entries in above passbooks; that above Manager did not remit any such amount of deposits by first informant, in the accounts of firm; that the applicant mostly lives in Bijnor or Dehradoon in connection with his business and asked Mukesh Kumar to clear the accounts and make available all the relevant documents and records of the firm; that under apprehension of prosecution for his wrongful acts, Mukesh Kumar managed his relative Teekam Singh for filing false FIR; that the applicant lodged FIR against above Mukesh Kumar at case crime no.340A of 2014, under Sections 420, 406, 120B, 506 IPC as he fraudulently received money from the depositors and did not send even single penny in the accounts of the firm; that the first informant has mentioned in the FIR that various persons made deposits in the applicant's firm while statements of only three persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded by the Investigating Officer; that in the case of FIR lodged by applicant against Mukesh Kumar, the police has wrongly submitted final report; that the parentage of the first informant has been mentioned as Babu Ram in the counter affidavit filed by him while Mantri Singh in the FIR as well as in other papers; that the applicant was not sitting at the Haldaur Branch of M/s. Vaishno Financiers and did not receive any deposit from first informant or anybody else; that since the applicant lodged FIR against his Manager and other employees, the first informant being Mausa of Mukesh Kumar and father-in-law of Omraj has lodged the present FIR with false and baseless allegations; that co-accused Surendra Singh and Sanjeev Kumar have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 04.12.2014 and 31.08.2014 passed in criminal misc. bail applications no.42250 of 2014 and 40423 of 2014 respectively; that the applicant has no criminal history; that the applicant undertakes that he will not make misuse of the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 04.02.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant is mastermind of the crime in question, who started business of finance under the name and style of M/s. Vaishno Financers in equal partnership with Narendra Singh through partnership deed dated 12.12.2008 at Annexure 2; that in photocopy of above typewritten partnership deed at first page certain manipulations have been made and some handwritten sentences have been added including addition of a new handwritten term no.13 by way of manipulation, which do not bear any initial; that otherwise also the above Annexure 2 is not true copy of the original partnership deed as the photocopy filed at Annexure 2 does not bear the signatures of any of the witnesses of the deed; that the registration of M/s. Vaishno Financiers with Registrar of Firms is not sufficient for carrying on the business in finances without obtaining due permission/ registration from the Reserve Bank of India; that it is not disputed that the office of applicant's company was at Haldaur and even if it is admitted for the sake of argument that the applicant was not sitting in Haldaur Office or was sitting at Bijnor Branch or was living at Dehradoon, but on this ground he may not be absolved from the responsibilities of his firm; that it is not dispute that Mukesh Kumar was Manager of the firm of the applicant as has been admitted by the applicant in para 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application; that it is absolutely wrong to say that above Mukesh Kumar or other employees Pawan Kumar and Omraj are related to the first informant or first informant happens to be Mausa of Mukesh Kumar or father-in-law of Omraj; that the applicant lodged the FIR against his Manager Mukesh Kumar and two other employees Pawan Kumar and Omraj, copy of which has been filed as Annexure 4 to the bail application; that it is wrong to say that the FIR has been lodged by the first informant in order to counter-blast to the FIR lodged against Mukesh Kumar for saving Mukesh Kumar and putting pressure on the applicant for entering into compromise in the matter of above FIR lodged by applicant against Mukesh Kumar; that it is pertinent to mention that FIR of present case was lodged on 31.08.2014 while the FIR against Mukesh Kumar, Manager of applicant has been lodged subsequently on 18.09.2014 and so it is very much clear that after lodging of FIR against the applicant, in order to save himself from the clutches of law and set up a false defence, the applicant has lodged a fake FIR against his employees Mukesh Kumar and others and got final report submitted by his undue influence on the Investigating Officer; that it is also pertinent to mention that in FIR lodged by the applicant against Mukesh Kumar and others, there is no whisper of any relationship of Mukesh Kumar and Omraj with the first informant, who had lodged FIR against applicant much earlier, and the allegations of alleged relationship of first informant with them have also been falsely and subsequently concocted for obtaining bail; that some other persons have also lodged FIR against the applicant at case crime no.62 of 2015 and case crime no.75 of 2015, as mentioned in para 11 and copies of which filed as Annexure 2 at pages 11 to 18 to the counter affidavit; that the applicant has usurped huge amount in crores from the first informant and other investors; that Mukesh Kumar and other employees of applicant's firm are hand in gloves with the applicant; that the father's name of first informant is Babu Ram, but since he was Mantri and is also known as 'Mantri', so at some places his parentage has been mentioned as Mantri which means 'Mantri Babu Ram' but the applicant is not entitled to get any advantage or bail on this score; that co-accused Sanjeev Kumar and Surendra Singh have been granted bail on different footing being Agent and Assistant Manager of M/s. Vaishno Financers and their cases were distinguishable from main accused/ applicant Dushyant Kumar Arya; that charge sheet has been submitted and if the accused/ applicant is released on bail, he will make misuse of liberty of bail and will tamper with the prosecution evidence.