Kamal Singh Sikarwar vs State Of M.P.

In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, these applications have been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicants have filed these first applications under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.

The applicants apprehend their arrest in Crime No.483/2019 registered by Police Station Hajira, District Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and Section 5/6 of Inami Chit Fund & Dhan Parichalan Adhiniyam, 1978.

It is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have not committed the offfence in any manner. It is argued that the applicants are themselves victims to the incident. They themselves have invested a huge amount in the company for which no refund has been made to them. It is submitted that the complainant has insisted them to invest in the company giving the assurance of getting good returns from the company. He has further appraised regarding the huge benefits earned in the company itself. It is argued that the chain of circumstances has not been completed in the matter to have roped up the present applicants in the matter. Counsel for the applicants have pointed out that the complainant as well as 35 persons including the present applicants have filed the private complaint against the Director of the company before the JMFC Gwalior. They have further enclosed the copy of the complaint in which the complainant of the present case is also one of the complainant in the private complaint filed before the JMFC. It is argued that the applicants have also filed complaints to the police authorities as well as to the senior police authorities regarding the fraud being played with them as their amount has been got invested in the companies giving false assurances of good returns but thereafter the companies has been closed down. It is submitted that they have no nexus with the company in question, therefore, no case under the chit fund Act is being made out against the present applicants. On the contrary, by filing the documents along with the petition it is argued that they themselves are victims in the present case. They themselves have suffered huge loss by making investments in the company on the false assurances given by the complainant and the Directors of the company. It is submitted that they are ready to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while considering their applications for grant of bail. It is further submitted that although the bail application under Section 438 is being barred for the present offences but when no case is made out from the facts of the case, then the 438 application can be considered. He has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Naresh Kumar Lahria Versus State of MP reported in 2004 (4) MPHT 205 and the order passed in M.Cr.C. No.5621/2020 and has argued that in similar circumstances this Court has observed that when no case is made out from the fact of the case then the anticipatory bail application should have been taken into consideration.

Per contra counsel for the State has opposed the applications stating that the investigation is pending in the matter. It is a case of chit fund and the 438 application is specifically barred under this Act. It is further submitted that there are specific allegations against the present applicants to give instigation to the other persons for investing in the company. On the basis of the false assurances they have got invested the money from other investors also. It cannot be a ground for consideration of bail that they themselves have invested in the company but the fact remains that there are sufficient evidence available on record to have implicated the present applicants for commission of offence. It is submitted that it is a special enactment and 438 application is specifically barred, he has prayed for dismissal of the applications.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is a specific bar under the Chit fund Act for consideration of anticipatory bail applications and investigation is pending in the matter and there are sufficient material available on record which could have shown the involvement of the present applicants in the commission of offence. Merely the fact that they are also one of the investors in the company would not proclude them from the role played by them in commission of the offfence, this Court does not deem it appropriate to allow these applications. The applications are hereby rejected.