Rajnish Bhatnagar, J
1. These are the petitions filed by the petitioner under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 295/2017 in Bail Application 1768/2021
and FIR No. 296/2017 in Bail Application 2476/2021 under sections 409/420/477A/120B IPC registered at P.S. - R.K. Puram.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the present FIR’s were registered on the complaint of one Raju Dudani in Bail Application
1768/2021 and Ravinder Kumar Ngapal in Bail Application 2476/2021 that 2 persons Sitaram and Abhishek of M/S Amrapali Aadya Trading and
Investment Pvt. Ltd. (herein referred to as “the companyâ€) approached the complainants in the month of February 2015 (to Raju Dudani in Bail
Application 1768/2021) and in September 2016 (to Ravinder Kumar Ngapal in Bail Application 2476/2021)Â for opening a Demat account with the
company having their offices at Somdatt Chambers 1, UG-29 Bhikajicama Place, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110066 and at 13 Vaishali, Lala Jagatnarain
Marg, Pitampura Delhi 110034. They both presented that the company is leading and well-established stock brokers from last 18 years with absolutely
clean antecedents and transparent dealings. They also assured the complainants that all of their equities/shares will be kept safely and securely into
the Demat account, holding with the company. Thereafter, both the complainants decided to open a Demat account in the company in February 2015
and in September 2016 respectively. On behalf of the said company two persons, namely, Sitaram and Abhishek collected Power of Attorney and few
documents like KYC, Holders Detail Form, Nomination Forms duly filled in by the complainants on the pretext that they are the necessary documents
as per the prevailing practice for opening Demat and Trading account with the company and will be properly filed by them as per the standard
obligatory requirements and these documentation once completed, will be shared in the form of a photocopied set with both the complainants. It was
further represented to the complainants that all the original documents which were signed by the complainants will remain in the safe custody of the
company. The Demat and Trading account of complainants were opened with the company bearings numbers DP:CDSL12059200, Demat account
00118760, Trading account number 2532 and CDSL 12059200, Demat account 00180141 and Trading account number Z90 respectively.
3. Thereafter, both the complainants requested the above said persons to give the duly verified and stamped copy of the complete set of documents
but the documents received by complainants were incomplete which were neither signed nor authenticated by any official of the company. Moreover
the copy of the power of attorney and other relevant documents were not supplied to the complainants despite repeated reminders but instead both the
person repeatedly assured the complainants that the dealings were absolutely transparent and honest and the shares are kept in the Demat account in
the safe custody of CDSL. Unsuspectingly the complainants started trade transactions with the company in respective trading accounts. After few
months the complainants realised that they have no information from CDSL about shareholding in the Demat account and contacted both the said
persons about this legal deficiency upon which they again assured the complainants that all the shareholding are being properly maintained. Whenever
the complainants contacted the office of the company they were ensured by the regional head and other officials that their shares are being kept in
Demat Account. Then the complainants made further payments through cheques on the various dates for purchasing all the equities. The
complainants have shareholding amounting to Rs.35 Lacs and Rs.1.10 Crores respectively.
4. In August 2017, both the complainants requested the officials of the company to provide the statements of shareholding in CDSL, upon which they
mailed the statement but there was nothing from CDSL depicting the complete shareholding being kept which is linked to the Demat accounts of the
complainants, then they became suspicious as shareholdings were not reflected in CDSL account. Later on, after the intense inquiries by the
complainants, said Abhishek and Sitaram revealed that Sanjeev Kumar Sinha (petitioner herein) who is the CEO of the company, along with other
persons has without the knowledge and consent of the complainants transferred all the shares into Margin Account/Pool Account and siphoned off all
the shares and has clandestinely pledged them as collateral.
5. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for state, learned counsel for complainants, perused the status report and
have also perused the records of the case.
6. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is in judicial custody since 17.08.2018. It is further submitted by him that
even after 30 months of filing of charge sheet the charges have not been framed. It is further submitted by him that complainants themselves admitted
that they opened a Trading account and Demat account by providing their KYC details, filling the application form, nomination form and also signed
the Power of Attorney in favour of the company. It is further submitted by him that it was on the basis of the Power of Attorney that the shares of the
Demat account have been transferred to the pool account of the company and there is no revocation of the Power of Attorney. It is further submitted
that it is evident from the bank accounts and the trading accounts of the complainants about the transactions being carried out. It is further submitted
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on 11.08.20217, SEBI passed an ex-parte ad-interim order freezing all the assets and the bank
account of the company that can be operated under the supervision of NSE and BSE. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a
civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner has clean past antecedents and has deep roots in the society,
hence, it is prayed that bail be granted to the petitioner in both the bail applications.
7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
* Sunil Sakht vs. State, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 571.
* Sharad Kumar Vs. CBI, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 5056.
* Suresh Kalmadi vs. CBI, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 361.
* Awanish Kumar Mishra vs. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4786.
8. On the other hand, learned APP for the state duly assisted by the counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing the present bail
applications submitted that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is further submitted that even after the arrest the petitioner has not
cooperated with investigating agency and not provided the documents. It is further submitted that SEBI passed an ex-parte ad-interim order because
the NSE and BSE were receiving various complaints against the company. It is further submitted that though the chargesheet stands filed but the
cognizance has not been taken by the learned Trial Court and learned Trail Court has allowed the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and
directed the further investigation in the matter. It is further submitted that other directors of the company are not joining the investigation and
absconded without leaving any address and on this ground the learned Trial Court has rejected the bail of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has misappropriated more than Rs.200 Crores with the same modus operandi and there are more than 1000 gullible and innocent victims
who are duped by the present petitioner. It is further submitted that there are various cases registered against the petitioner all over the country
including the FIR no. 164/2017 being investigated by EOW and there are more than 124 complainants/public victims in that FIR. It is further submitted
that the petitioner/applicant has siphoned of the said money without leaving any money trail and also failed to give any explanation about the
whereabouts of the misappropriated money. It is further submitted that the cheated amount is yet to be recovered. It is further submitted that there is
every possibility that accused will evade the process of law in the middle of the investigation and may tamper with the evidence, he may also abscond
if granted bail.
9. In the instant cases, a bare perusal of the records shows that the petitioner is accused of an offence which can be termed as white collar crime.
It is pertinent to mention that as per the status report the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation even after his arrest. One cannot lose sight
of the fact that other co-accused persons are absconding. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the shares were not transferred by him. The
allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and as far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that charges have not
been framed is concerned, it is evident that learned Trial Court has not taken the cognizance and has directed further investigation in the matter
looking into its magnitude. Moreover, SEBI has also passed an order against the company of the petitioner. The cheated amount misappropriated
which is more than Rs.200 Crores belongs to gullible public. In Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2013 (V) AD SC 549, in
which Supreme Court has observed that bail shall be granted by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances with gravity of offence.
Relevant paras are as follows:
26) Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber
of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. In State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr. (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court, while considering a request of the
prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:-
5.....The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder
may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the
Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even
handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the national economy and national interest....
27) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of
the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger
interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the
Legislature has used the words ""reasonable grounds for believing"" instead of ""the evidence"" which means the Court dealing with the grant
of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima
facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
28) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence
having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
10. As far as the judgement relied upon the by the learned senior counsel for petitioners is concerned there is no dispute with regard to the preposition
of law laid down therein. However, there is no straight jacket formula for disposal of a particular bail application and each case has its own peculiar
merits. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case law relied upon are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly the gravity of allegations, nature of the crime and also
keeping in view the fact that huge amount of public money is involved which is yet to be recovered and the investigation is still pending as learned Trial
Court has allowed further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., no ground for bail is made out, therefore, bail applications are dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
12. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to the expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
