Allowed

Morimisetty Pandu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2024BAIL/9592/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected bail applications arising from economic offenses involving sugar export fraud, the court allowed the applicant's second bail petitions. Relying on a prior Supreme Court order granting bail in a similar case and noting changed circumstances, the court ordered the applicant's release subject to personal bond and strict conditions regarding court attendance and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions on court attendance and non-interference with evidence.

Morimisetty Pandu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69123

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9592 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Morimisetty Pandu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home,Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava

¶5

And

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9430 of 2024

¶7

Applicant :- Morimisetty Pandu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Salil Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶9

Counter affidavit filed by the State in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9430 of 2024 which is taken on record.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant states that he does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit as ground taken for the second bail is duly covered by the rejoinder affidavit filed in the connected Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9592 of 2024.

¶11

Today, the State has filed its counter affidavit and the counsel for the applicant has also furnished his rejoinder affidavit and both are taken on record in Criminal Bail Application no.9592 of 2024.

¶12

Both the above mentioned bail applications relate to the same applicant, however, in respect of two different Case crime numbers as detailed hereinafter. As the facts are by and large the same hence both the bail applications are being decided by this common order.

¶13

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.0161 of 2020, under Sections 120-B,

¶14

420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Pasgawan, District Kheri which has given rise to second Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9592 of 2024 and in Case Crime no.0627 of 2022 under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC Police Station-Nanpara, District Bahraich which has given rise to second Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9430 of 2024.

¶15

Heard Sri Salil Tripathi learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vishwas Saraswat learned AGA for the State-respondent as well as Sri Anoop Kumar learned counsel for the informant in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9592 of 2024.

¶16

The instant two bail applications are second bail applications of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant in respect of Case Crime no.161 of 2020 was rejected by this Court on 17.05.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.12633 of 2023 and Ist bail in Case Crime no.627 of 2022 was rejected in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.11955 of 2023 on 17.05.2024.

¶17

To put the matter in a perspective certain brief facts giving rise to the instant second bail applications are being noticed hereinafter.

¶18

The accused/applicant along with other directors incorporated a company in the name of M/s. Shri Venkateshwara Global Trading Pvt. Ltd. (Sugar Export Firm) where the applicant served as a Director of the Company till 03.05.2017. The applicant submitted his resignation to the Board of Directors, which was duly accepted, and communicated to the to the Registrar of Companies via resolution dated 26.06.2017. After resignation, the name of the applicant was removed from the list of Directors.

¶19

As per the version of the FIR, the alleged Company in the year 2019-20 entered into contract with Shravasti Cooperative Sugar Mill Ltd. Nanpara at the approved export rates and quantity i.e. 28602 quintal at 2420/- per quintal for the year 2017-18 and 2436/- per quintal for the year 2019-20. A total of 14585 quintals of sugar out of 28602 quintals was lifted by the firm by depositing Rs.3,00,32,786/- in the mill fund, against which the mill was to receive Rs.1,53,14,541.70/- as grant. As per the Government guidelines, the firm had to provide necessary forms to the mill after export process, so that the mill can receive the approved subsidy amount. The required and approved forms were not provided by the firm to the mill, thus the same could not be submitted which resulted in loss of the subsidy amount of Rs.1,53,14,541.70/-. to the mill. Further many notices and instructions were given to the firm which

¶20

came back with a comment of Wrong Address. The Mill thereafter deposited the post dated cheques of Rs.3,00,32,786 which were dishonored due the difference in signature of the drawer on 24.09.2020.

¶21

It was alleged that the firm with malafide and fraudulent intention of obtaining benefit had misused the sugar for export given at subsidized rates which was meant to be sold in foreign markets. This was against the sugar export policy of the Government. By violating the terms of contract the said firm caused a loss of Rs.1,53,14,541.70/- to the mill and deliberately issued post dated cheques with false signatures of unauthorized persons to fraudulently obtain benefits and cause harm to the Mills by violating government instructions and policies regarding sugar export.

¶22

Primarily with the aforesaid averments and with some what similar allegations several FIRs were lodged against the applicant.

¶23

Consequently, in this regard three bail applications were initially filed which arose from Case Crime Nos.627 of 2022, 161 of 2020 and 205 of 2022 and all three were rejected by this Court on 14.05.2024.

¶24

The present applicant went up before the Apex Court against the order passed by this Court on 14.05.2024 in respect of Case Crime no.205 of 2022.

¶25

The Apex Court by means of its order dated 13.08.2024 in Criminal Appeal no.3354 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Crl) no.8268 of 2024 granted bail in Case Crime no.205 of 2022. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Apex Court dated 13.08.2024 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:

¶26

" 1. Leave granted.

¶27

2. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order has rejected the appellant's prayer for bail.

¶28

3. The appellant is an accused in FIR No.205 of 2022 dated 29.7.2022 registered with Police Station Trikoniya, Lakhimpur, Uttar Pradesh for offence(s) punishable under Sections 420/409/467/468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶29

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶30

5. Having regard to the fact that the investigating officer has seized all relevant incriminating material and charge-sheet under Section 173(2) of

¶31

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on 11th August, 2023 coupled with the fact that the appellant has been behind bars since 21st December, 2022, we are inclined to accept the present appeal.

¶32

6. The impugned order stands set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.

¶33

7. We clarify that the observations made in this order and grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

¶34

8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶35

9. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of."

¶36

In the aforesaid backdrop since three bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court and the applicant assailed the order in one case wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail as per the order quoted hereinabove, the applicant has now filed the second bail applications in Case Crime nos.161 of 2020 and 627 of 2022.

¶37

Submission is that there has been change in the circumstances as by and large the allegations against the applicant has been quite similar and uniform. On the same set of allegations the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court in terms of the order as noticed hereinabove hence the applicant is entitle to parity in light of the orders passed by the Apex Court.

¶38

It has been the case of the applicant that he had resigned as the Director of the Company in the month of Feb, 2019 whereas the tenders floated were subsequent thereto i.e. in the month of December, 2019 and it cannot be envisaged that the applicant would have resigned in the month of February, 2019 knowing that the sugar mills would be floating their tenders in the month of December, 2019. It is also urged that the State while filing its counter affidavit got the various documents verified from the Registrar of Companies including the fact that the applicant had resigned in the month of February, 2019. However the said verification has been brought on record by the State in its counter affidavit now but was not filed when the first bail applications were considered.

¶39

It is also urged that in various FIRs lodged against the applicant both in this State of U.P. and in other State, the applicant had moved bail applications which have been allowed and the various bail orders in respect of FIRs lodged in State of U.P. and other states have been placed on record. In such circumstances, the applicant is entitled to bail.

¶40

Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have urged that the modus operandi of the applicant has been such that he has misused the systemic process for his personal gains which has resulted in humongous losses to the sugar mills, accordingly, the bail applications deserves to be rejected.

¶41

The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶42

This Court had rejected the first bail application by means of the order dated 14.05.2024. It is not disputed by the learned AGA or the learned counsel for the informant (who has appeared only in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.9592 of 2024) that on similar charges and allegations the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court by means of the order dated 13.08.2024.

¶43

It is also not disputed that the charges against the applicant are primarily the same. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant also could not dispute the fact that upon verification of the requisite records before the Registrar of Companies it was found that the applicant had resigned in the month of February, 2019. It is also could not be disputed that the tenders were floated in the month of December, 2019 after the applicant had resigned as a Director of the Company and this fact was not brought to the notice when the first bail application of the applicant was being considered.

¶44

Considering the fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court in similar facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that he has been in jail since 21.12.2022 and in various cases which have been lodged against the applicant in different States including several cases filed against the applicant before this Court at Lucknow and Allahabad and the applicant is on bail, hence, considering the change in circumstances after the bail has been granted by the Apex Court on similar facts and circumstances and noticing the period of incarceration as well as the fact that the applicant is not at flight risk or the applicant is not in a position to tamper any evidence or influence any witness and also noticing that the chargesheet has been filed and further custodial interrogation of question is not required , hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶45

Accordingly, the instant second bail applications are allowed.

¶46

Let the applicant- Morimisetty Pandu involved in the

¶47

above-mentioned Case Crime Nos.0161 of 2020, under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police StationPasgawan, District Kheri and Case Crime no.0627 of 2022 under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 IPC Police Station-Nanpara, District Bahraich in both the criminal misc. bail applications be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶48

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶49

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶50

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶51

(iv) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶52

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶53

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶54

Order Date :- 4.10.2024 Harshita

¶55

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Morimisetty Pandu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Morimisetty Pandu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home,Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Amethi and Others

Tamheed Fatima Vs State of U.P., Thru. Chief Secy., Revenue and Ors.

Nattha @ Natthu Vs Village Panchayat Humayupur, Pargana and Tehsil Ramkot, Sitapur Thru. Secy.

Anshika Bajpai vs Akhilesh Tiwari

Smt. Ranjana Devi vs Tahsildar, Tahsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others

Ram Sumer vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Kunda, Pratapgarh and Others