Allowed

Anil Kumar Jain v. the State of Assam

Gauhati HC19 Sept 2022AB/2402/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding a criminal conspiracy and cheating case alleging commercial dispute, the Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail on a bond of Rs. 1 lakh with sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus two sureties of like amount subject to appearance before I.O. within 10 days and other conditions.

Anil Kumar Jain Vs the State of Assam — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010167912022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : AB/2402/2022

¶5

ANIL KUMAR JAIN S/O SUBH KARAN JAIN

¶6

PERMANENT RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 79 AND 80, PAIGAH COLONY BEHIND ANAND THEATRE, P.O. AND P.S. BEGUMPET, DIST. HYDARABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶7

PIN- 500003 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ANANDA NAGAR, SIXTHMILE, P.O. KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. HEREIN BY ITS PP, ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S BORTHAKUR

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 19.09.2022

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State.

¶16

Page No.# 2/6

¶17

Apprehending arrest in connection with Teok P.S. Case No. 137/2022 under sections 406/409/420/384/ 385/387/364/364A/365/34/120B of the IPC, the petitioner has filed this application for pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a civil dispute has been converted to a criminal case in order to avoid making payment of money claimed by M/s. Linkon and Dignity Infraprojects, the sub-contractor firm and/or joint venture partner of the informant’s Company, namely, Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. It is claimed that the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Jain is only a financial consultant to the M/s Linkon and Dignity Infraprojects JV.

¶19

The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for pre-arrest bail on the ground that since the initial agreement between the parties, the petitioner had no intention of keeping and/or acting as per their mutual arrangement and thereby he petitioner in connivance and/or with active participation of all the co-accused, has cheated the company of the first information and has intentionally caused losses and mis-appropriated money as well as construction equipment and machineries in the name of carrying out sub-contract, which was not performed at all. It was submitted that there are ample incriminating materials against the petitioner.

¶20

At the outset, in the absence of any document, the Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a financial consultant to M/s. Linkon and Dignity Infraprojects JV.

¶21

The case diary reveals that the NHIDCL, i.e. National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. had issued a “Letter of

¶22

Page No.# 3/6

¶23

Acceptance” dated 09.11.2017 to the Company of the informant, namely, Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd. (“GD&CL” for short) at the contract price of Rs.407,30,00,000/- (Rupees Four hundred seven crore thirty lakh only). The said Company of the informant, in turn, had entered into an agreement dated 10.12.2019 with M/s. Linkon and Dignity Infraprojects JV (“L&DIJV” for short) for execution of the said contract work. The said agreement contains arbitration clause.

¶24

It appears that due to certain defaults committed by L&DIJV, by a letter dated 14.09.2021, the GD&CL had terminated the contract and asked the said L&DIJV to act as directed by the said letter. The said letter is available in the case diary.

¶25

In the FIR dated 16.05.2022, it is projected that the GD&CL had given a sum of Rs.22.48 Crore to L&DIJV and after taking money, there was no progress of the contract work and therefore, a dispute had arisen between the parties. It was alleged in the FIR that L&DIJV had become entitled to payment of money as well as return of their construction equipment and machineries and that as the equipments and machineries were not returned despite demand, 4 (four) officials of the said L&DIJV had arrived at Jorhat on 25.08.2021 for getting back the possession of the same. However, the said officers were illegally restrained and abducted by the FIR named accused persons and their agents and sub-contractors and forcibly taken away and confined in a room for 4 (four) days. It was further alleged that on being aided and abetted by the FIR named accused, some persons claiming to be the local creditors and subcontractors had coerced the informant to sign on a document dated 28.08.2021 under duress and under threat of death or grievous hurt and only after signing the document, the 4 (four) officers of the GD&CL were allowed to leave. In the

¶26

Page No.# 4/6

¶27

FIR, it is projected that by the said document signed by the informant, the GD&CL had purportedly admitted their liabilities although there was no direct business transaction by GD&CL.

¶28

It may be mentioned that as per the FIR dated 16.05.2021, the informant has alleged that he and other 3 (three) officers of GD&CL were abducted and upon threat, he was made to sign and admit the liability of GD&CL on 28.08.2021. However, for the reasons best known to the said GD&CL, they are conspicuously silent about alleged abduction of its 4 (four) officers from 25.08.2021 to 28.08.2021 in the termination of contract cum demand letter dated 14.09.2021 for Rs.49.22 Crore, as sent to the L&DIJV.

¶29

The abduction took place on 25.08.2021, the informant and other three officers of GD&CL were kept illegally confined from 25.08.2021 to 28.08.2021. Demand notice was issued on 14.09.2021, with no reference to alleged abduction and signature taken by threatening the informant. Nonetheless, the FIR was lodged on 16.05.2022. Therefore, it appears that the delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. Hence, it appears that a civil/ arbitration dispute is sought to be given a criminal cloak.

¶30

Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, the Court is inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner by providing that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, namely, Anil Kumar Jain in connection with the aforesaid Teok P.S. Case No. 137/2022, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two suitable surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶31

The pre-arrest bail is granted on the following conditions:

¶32

Page No.# 5/6

¶33

a. The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. of Teok P.S. Case No. 137/2022 within 10 (ten) days from the date of the order, failing which the pre-arrest bail shall lapse on the 11^th day of the order.

¶34

b. The petitioner shall make himself available to the police or any other investigating agency or Court in the present case as and when required.

¶35

c. The petitioner 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/her from disclosing such facts to Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶36

d. The petitioner shall not, in any manner, try to overawe or influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

e. The petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation/trial.

¶38

f. The petitioner shall provide his mobile number containing whatsapp facility as well as his e-mail address to the I.O. to enable the I.O. to summon the petitioner as and when required for the purpose of investigation.

¶39

g. The petitioner shall give his attendance before the I.O. once every calendar month till his personal appearance is dispensed with and/or charge-sheet is submitted, whichever is earlier.

¶40

h. The petitioner shall not misuse his liberty in any manner.

¶41

In the event the petitioner defaults in abiding by the conditions on which pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, it would be open to the I.O.

¶42

Page No.# 6/6

¶43

to move the jurisdictional Court and apply for cancellation of bail.

¶44

This application stands disposed of.

¶45

Let the case diary be returned.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Anil Kumar Jain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Jain v. the State of Assam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Ali and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Nayan Jyoti Das Vs the State of Assam

Atowar Hussain Vs the State of Assam

Lakhinath Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Mannan Sheikh @ Md. Mannan Ali Vs the State of Assam

Darog Ali @ Zakir Ali @ Jakir Ali Vs the State of Assam