Criminal bail application rejected despite applicant resigning from the company. Court distinguished precedents regarding non-prosecution of juristic persons due to extensive misappropriation of investor funds by directors and officers, holding this case unfit for bail.
Bail application rejected; trial to be concluded within one year.
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.
Reserved on 13.3.2023 Delivered on 16.3.2023
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58903 of 2022
Applicant : - Ang Pratap Man Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlendra Tripathi,Abhijit Mishra,Devesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Abhijit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Ang Pratap Man Singh with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District- Shahjahanpur, during pendency of trial.
There is allegation against 12 accused persons including the applicant that they are the Chairmen, Manager, Director, etc., of finance company and they have collected about Rs.1,20,00,000/- through informants, who are agents and investors of their company and after embezzling amount deposited by the investors, they have locked premises of the company and vanished.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He had resigned from company on 26.9.2012. The company is a juristic person and has not been implicated as an accused in the FIR. Hence the criminal proceedings are initiated in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 100. The applicant has criminal history of two cases and is in jail since 21.10.2022. All the offences alleged are triable by Magistrate.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant. Counter affidavit has been filed by learned AGA wherein it has been stated that the applicant is one of the Director of the company, which had eight Directors. The applicant has criminal history of fives cases including the present case. The company of the applicant was having bank accounts in H.D.F.C. bank and I.C.I.C.I. bank and huge amounts were transferred in the
1 of 2
aforesaid accounts. The amount, which was required to be returned to the investors after maturity, was misappropriated by the applicant and other accused persons. It has further been submitted that the applicant resigned from the company on 5.10.2016 and prior to that number of transactions took place.
After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethi (Supra) although lays down the correct law, but the affairs of the company are managed by the Directors and other office bearers. The company cannot be physically prosecuted. At the most its assets can be liquidated for liquidating financial liabilities. In the present case, the transactions have taken place in the bank account of the company since the year 2013. Huge amount of public money of poor investors have been misappropriated. Hence this case is not fit for enlarging the applicant on bail at this stage.
This Court further finds that in all the FIRs of this nature, the company is always named, but the police never arrays the company as an accused in the FIR and on this technical ground the accused, who are the office bearers of this company and vicariously liable for its act, are let off.
The bail application is rejected.
The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date : - 16.3.2023
Ruchi Agrahari
2 of 2
Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant given the misappropriation of huge public money by directors and office bearers of the company.
Whether the technicality of the company not being the accused in the FIR warrants dismissal of bail applications against office bearers.
Whether a time-bound conclusion of the trial can be directed for offences triable by the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushil Sethi and Another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and OthersDistinguished¶12
Sushil Sethi and another Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 100
Ang Pratap Man Singh
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
