NILESH LILLHARE Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All three bail applications on behalf of applicants have been filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.187/2016 registered by Police Station-Baihar, District Balaghat for the offences under Section 420, 467, 468 of IPC, under Section 4 of Price and Cheat fund (Banning) Act 1978 and Section 6 of M.P. Protection of interest of Investors Act, 2000.

(2.) As per the allegations a company was formed in the name of Satguru Sai Civil Constructions Company Limited, wherein, Tejkishor Sahu, Damanram, Khemendra Sahu, Ajeetram Sahu, Mansingh Tekam, Radha Tekam and Santosh Sahu were the Directors of the company. Punaram, Shalikram and Nilesh were the employees of the said company and working on behalf of the company in the field and in the office. As alleged as per the policy of the company, consumers were attracted giving assurance that if deposits were made by them, within six years double amount be returned back accordingly business of more than Rupees five crore have been done by the company. One of the agent of the company lodged FIR when the amount as assured has not been returned back to the consumers, however, the offence has been registered after completion of investigation. Learned counsel for the employees contended that they are the employees of the company and they were bound to act upon as per the policy of the company but they are not the beneficiary of any of the amount as per the evidence brought on record. Therefore, looking to the period of custody about four months and the facts that investigation has already been completed, however prayer may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel appearing for Mansingh Tekam, one of the Directors contends that he is not the person in charge of the Madhya Pradesh and nothing has been alleged against him, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer contends that she is not in position to dispute the case of the employees but so far as the case of Director Mansingh Tekam concerned, he has purchased lot of property and the documents are available on record. Being a director, he defrauded various consumers, therefore, he is not entitled to released on bail.