The High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a cheating case, relying on Supreme Court precedents requiring company implication for prosecuting employees and capping bail grounds on epidemic needs.
Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding cooperation and verification of orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2234 of 2020
Applicant :- Mohd. Yaseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui,Atharva Dixit,Aushim Luthra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vivek Singh
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A.
The allegation in the First Information Report is against seven accused persons.The allegation is that company named 'Bharat Bhoomi Real Estate Ltd. which was subsequently registered as Amber Mutual Benefits Corporation Ltd., Town Hall near Hockey Field Shahjahanpur collected money from the public and thereafter closed his office.
It is submitted that applicant was only cashier in the company and Managing Director of the company is Anand Kumar Mishra. The role of the applicant was only of dealing with the record of money transactions of the company.No money was transferred in personal account of the applicant by the investors.The role of the applicant is distinguishable from the role of the Managing Director of the Company, Anand Kumar Mishra. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC, 781 and Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC, 661 , has held that for prosecution against the employees and Directors of the Company, the implication of the company is necessary where company is not implicated their prosecution cannot be done.The applicant is in jail since 14.11.2019 and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact..
Keeping in view the nature of the offence,
argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mohd. Yaseen, who is involved in Case Crime No. 666 of 2019, under Sections 420, 406 I.P.C, Police Station-Sadar Bazar , DistrictShahjahanpur, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 10.9.2020 Atul kr. sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is eligible for bail considering his role as a cashier and the relevant Supreme Court precedents on company prosecution.
Whether bail should be granted in view of larger constitutional mandates and epidemic concerns.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita RaneReferred¶7
Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane, (2015) 12 SCC, 781 · Who else cites this
Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd.Referred¶7
Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Ltd., (2012) 5 SCC, 661 · Who else cites this
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.Followed¶10
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Yaseen
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Siddharth
Parties & counsel
