Deepak Kumar V. Union of India through CBI

A.B.A./1646/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Deepak Kumar, who is apprehending arrest in connection with a case of alleged embezzlement involving his father, Ram Bilas Yadav, the director of Mirthway Networking Ltd. The original complaint was filed by Md. Nisar Ansari, who accused the company of misappropriating his investment. The CBI took over the investigation, and a charge sheet was filed against Deepak Kumar, who was argued to have no direct involvement in the alleged crimes as he was not an authorized signatory and had no control over the company's operations during the time the alleged offences occurred. The court considered precedents and the specifics of the case, including the return of most of the investors' money, before granting anticipatory bail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 806535 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, Aman Preet Singh Vs CBI
• Laws Referred To: Indian Penal Code
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR; CHANDANA KUMARI; NITISH SARTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: A K KASHYAP; RANJAN SINGH
• Keywords: Anticipatory bail; Custodial interrogation; Embezzlement; Public money; High return
• Section: 409; 420; 120B; 406

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1646 of 2023 ------ Deepak Kumar .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Union of India through CBI .... .... .... Opp. Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anil Kumar, A.S.G.I. Ms. Chandana Kumari, A.C. to A.S.G.I. Mr. Nitish Parth Sarthi, A.C. to A.S.G.I. ------ Order No.09 Dated :22.06.2023 The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with R.C. P.S. Case No. 64(S) of 2017 for the offence registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. cum Special J.M., C.B.I., Dhanbad, is pressed into motion. The case was initially registered as Godda (T) P.S. Case No.266 of 2014 on 17.07.2014 on a complaint case filed by one Md. Nisar Ansari against Ram Bilas Yadav, Director of Mirthway Networking Ltd. under Sections 420, 406, 409 of the I.P.C. The complainant/informant had invested Rs.80,000/- in the company which was allegedly misappropriated. The investigation of the case was taken over by the CBI under the direction of this Court and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against this petitioner who happens to be the son of main accused, with other accused persons. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been roped into the case for being son of the main accused. Maturity amount has already been returned by the company and he was inducted as Director on 15.05.2010 and had no concern with the company when the alleged offence did take place. He was not authorized signatory to any Bank account of the company. Rs.1,78,59,151/- was paid to the investors leaving balance of only Rs.7,99,992/-. The charge sheet has been filed and there is no further requirement of custodial interrogation of this petitioner in view of ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51and Aman Preet Singh Vs CBI, 2021 SCC Online SC 941. Learned ASGI has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the matter involves embezzlement of the public money invested by the investors on false promise of high return. Considering the submissions made, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. Accordingly, the petitioner, above named, is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks and in the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and one of the bailors should be income tax payee. The petitioner will co-operate in the investigation and will appear under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as and when required and comply with the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit "