Rohit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84167

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7709 of 2024

Applicant :- Rohit Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Chandra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Misra,Satendra Kumar (Singh)

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajesh Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0034 of 2024 under sections 381, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC P.S.- Sarojni Nagar District -Lucknow.

¶8

As per the prosecution story, the allegation is leveled that the informant is a shareholder and Managing Director of the Mrs. Awadh Rail Infra Ltd. and is also Director in Ms. Radient Built Con Pvt Ltd. alongwith other five sister companies and he sold out 21 flats without any lawful authorization and behind the back of the other Directors, and has misappropriated the amount of sale consideration, while committing cheat & fraud.

¶9

It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated, due to ulterior motive. He submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the same has been given the colour of criminality. Further submitted that the applicant is admittedly one of the Director of the Radiant Build Con Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at Chandigarh, the company constructed 72 flates and five showrooms at site namely, Marina Heights situated at Tehsil Kharar. The applicant is also the shareholder in all the Companies and being a authorized person, he sold out 21 flats which is under question. He next submits that in fact all sale considerations were taken in the account of the Company and there is no evidence that any amount allegedly the sale consideration has ever been incredited in the account of the applicant; Further the police has also failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence so as to substantiate that any amount

¶10

is taken by the applicant in cash or in account, in-lieu of the sale consideration. He clarified that so far as the amount which is taken by the applicant from one Mr. Dhilon, was in-respect with a loan and therefore, the same cannot be connected with the amount which is said to be given in-relation with the sale consideration. He next added that the there was harmonious relation in between the Directors including the complainant who is also one of the Director and the dispute had arisen when the informant was trying to sell out the land situated at Chennai which was also in the name of the Company and thereafter, for mounting pressure, the present first information report has been lodged. He also submits that an amount Rs. 2.75 crores has been incredited in the account of the Company in a form of sale consideration regarding 21 flats said to be sold out by the applicant. He argued that the applicant filed writ petition no. 909 of 2024 before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein, the interim order was granted in favour of the applicant though, after filing of the chargesheet, the same was dismissed. The counsel further argued that the sale deed of flats which is in dispute was executed from 2012 to May, 2023 and since, last 11 years, there was no objection on the part of the informant and not only the aforesaid 21 flats, but the total sale deed was executed of 33 flats and 4 showrooms by the applicant on behalf of the Company.

¶11

He next submits that admittedly the applicant had also sold out two flats to his brother-in-law, later on, when the dispute arisen, the brother-in-law had raised voice which did not supports the action of the applicant though, the actual position is that after taking the sale considerations, the flats were sold out and the amount of sale consideration was incredited in the Company's account. He next submits that the dispute is in between the shareholders/directors of the Company and with view to mount pressure so as the applicant may leave some of his shares, the first information report has been lodged and the FIR is nothing, but to give gravity of the allegations though, there is no truthfulness in the same. He also submits that the applicant has four cases criminal history which has been explained and he is a law-abiding citizen and languishing in jail since 28.03.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Sri Satendra Singh, counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. He added that as many as 21 registered sale deeds have been executed without any authorization by the other Directors of the Company or any resolution passed thereunder. He further submits that the

¶13

statement of the brother-in-law itself is evident that the cheat & fraud has been committed and the amount of sale consideration has been misappropriated. He also submitted that the evidence remains that the applicant has taken the sale consideration in cash and he never discloses it to other Directors. He has also drawn attention towards the statement of the witnesses and submitted that the statement of the witness are enough to show that the applicant is involved in committing offence and he has infact committed cheat & fraud. He further added that huge amount of sale consideration has been misappropriated and after thorough investigation it was found that the correct thus, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has also supported the version of counsel for the complainant and submits that there is documentary proof that the applicant is involved in committing offence as such, he is not entitled for bail.

¶15

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the first information report has been lodged while alleging that the applicant unauthorisedly, sold out 21 flats and has misappropriated the amount of sale consideration and thus, committed cheat & fraud.

¶16

The facts remains that the applicant had sold out the other flats including the 21 flats wherein, the allegations upon the applicant is that he has committed cheat & fraud while executing the sale deed in favour of the purchasers and misappropriated the sale consideration. It is not the case that the applicant is not the Director of the Company or he has fabricated any document with respect to his Directorship or any authorization so as to sold out the flats. Further, as stated that Rs. 2.75 crore has been incredited in the account of the Company in form of sale consideration of 21 flats which is said to be sold out by the applicant and this is not within a short span of time, but started from 2012 to May, 2023 i.e. for 11 years, but prior to the present first information report, there seems to be no complaint by the other Directors or the complainant. This Court has also taken note of the fact that some dispute arose in between the parties regarding some land which was being sold out by one of the Director and while restraining by the present applicant for selling out the aforesaid land, being annoyed, the first information report is lodged. In paragraph no. 80 of the bail application, it is also evident that four cases with respect to civil dispute are pending between the applicant and the complainant and his father before different courts and the first information report is in counter-blast to the same. The dispute if any, between the parties regarding the amount which is said to

¶17

be misappropriated and while taking the sale consideration in a form of cash can be settled out before the court of civil competence and prima facie, this Court feels that there is no mensrea to commit an offence as is alleged in the first information report.

¶18

Further, it is also evident that the applicant filed a petition under sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013 for grant of injunction and other relief before the N.C.L.T. Chandigarh, wherein, the notices were issued to the complainant and his father and as soon as, the same were received by the complainant vide e-email, he lodged the first information report and further, the applicant also filed an application under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the first information report was lodged on 09.04.2024 against the complainant and inretaliation, the complainant got registered another first information report on 10.04.2024 against the applicant, which shows that the applicant and the complainant are tremendously, enemical to each other as a result, several litigations, civil and criminal are being instituted against each other.

¶19

This Court has also noticed the fact that there is no complaint that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation proceedings and further the criminal history of the applicant has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 28.03.2024 coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶21

Let the applicant- Rohit Srivastava involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶22

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶23

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶24

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶25

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶26

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶28

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.12.2024 Mayank

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohit Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Intezar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Jeeshan Ahmad @ Ahmad Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Sukesh Rajan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Kuldeep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.