Monoranjan Roy vs State Of Rajasthan

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

F.I.R. No. 28/2017 was registered at Special Police Station S.O.G for offence under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B, of I.P.C. and Section 65 I.T. Act.

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is the Managing Director of Pincon Group of Companies. The total amount collected from the State of Rajasthan was to the tune of Rs. 16 crore. Properties worth about same amount is lying with the S.O.G. It is also contended that Managing Director is not responsible as held by the Apex Court in "Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujrat and others" in Criminal Appeal No. 1248/2007 decided by the Apex Court on 18.09.2007 wherein in Para 13 it was observed by the Apex Court that the India Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicarious liabilities on the part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the Company when the accused is the company. It is obligatory on the part of the complainant to make requisite allegation which would attract the provisions constituting vicarious liability.

It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was arrested on 3rd November, 2017, a period of three years has lapsed. Charge-sheet has been filed. No proceedings have been initiated. It is also contended that case of petitioner is not akin to that of Binay Singh and Hari Singh who collected money on behalf of the company. There is no allegation that petitioner himself collected any money from the depositors of Rajasthan and merely because of bail applications of co-accused have been rejected by this Court and by the Apex court, the same would not have any effect on the bail application filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance on "Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujrat", Criminal Appeal No. 460/2020 wherein bail application was granted as the matter was pending adjudication for more than a year. It is also contended that though the petitioner has been convicted by Sessions Court in West Bengal, the conviction was under the West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013 which came into force on 14 th January, 2015. The act could not be given retrospective effect and the conviction made therein, cannot be a ground for rejection of the present bail application. It is also contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three years. He is suffering from type two diabetes and his medical condition is not proper.

Counsel for the State and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned Additional Advocate General that petitioner was the Managing Director of the Pincon Group, there was no authority of collecting the deposit and petitioner stands convicted and has been sentenced to life imprisonment by a Session Court and West Bengal under the Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013. It is also contended that total amount which has been collected and which is now due towards depositors is to the tune of Rs. 790 crores. It is also contended that case of Binay Singh and Hari Singh cannot be distinguished and the case of petitioner cannot be said to be on better footing rather he is the Managing Director. He is solely responsible for collecting the amount from depositors and for making payment to the depositors with regard to delay in the trial. It is contended that petitioner has obtained some orders from the West Bengal Court and on that account he is not turning up and for that reason he is not being sent to the Courts at Rajasthan and State cannot be said to be responsible for the delay.

Counsel for the petitioner is not aware of any orders having been passed by the West Bengal Court restraining sending of petitioner to the Courts at Jaipur.

I have considered the contentions.

As far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, bail application was granted by the Apex Court in "Jinofer Kawasji Bhujwala vs. State of Gujrat" (Supra) as the trial could not begin despite the petitioner having remained in custody for a period of about a year. The same would not apply on the facts of the present case as in the present case, bail application of co-accused was rejected by this Court and the said order was upheld by the Apex Court. Secondly, petitioner stands convicted under the West Bengal of Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 2013 by West Bengal Session Court and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and the total amount which he owes on the date of maturity to the depositors through out the country is to the tune of Rs. 790 crores.

As far as "Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujrat" (Supra) is concerned present is not the stage to decide on the vicarious liabilities of the petitioner, more particularly he being a Managing Director of Pincon Group and he was responsible for the collection made by the Pincon Group and for non-payment to the depositors. Further he stands convicted and has been sentenced to life imprisonment and the bail application of co-accused stands rejected by the Court. Hence, I am not inclined to allow the Bail Application.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.