Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S. B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kazim Abrahim, appearing fro C.B.I.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is a private person and has been charge sheeted under Section 120-B read with Section 409, 420 and 471 I.P.C. as well as substantive offence under Section 420 I.P.C. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is not charge sheeted under Section 65 of Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Section 409/471 I.P.C.
The prosecution case is that during period of 2010-2014, Sahara Group a private Corporate purchased general insurance policies from the New Indian Insurance Company Limited for which amount of Rs. 70,01,895/- had been shown paid to various agents/brokers by Sri Sandeep Dayal, the then Divisional Manager, New Indian Assurance Company. During investigation, it has further revealed that neither Sahara Group nor New Indian Assurance Company Ltd. had engaged any of these intermediaries or brokers and as per the rules, no commission was to be paid for direct booking of business by clients. The aforesaid insurance business pertains to the General Insurance of Sahara Group Companies against various business/events like Cricket Money Policy for cash and Bank department, fire policy, burglary and cash insurance, various policies for assets etc. The investigation further revealed that the main accused Sandeep Dayal in collusion with agents namely Sandeep Kumar, Abha Pandey and Rohit Shukla, as well as unknown officials of broker firms fraudulently showed booking of business through brokers/agents and withdrew commission to the tune of Rs. 70,01,895/-.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main accused Sandeep Dayal, the then Divisional Manager has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The bail order of Sandeep Dayal is on record.
It is further contended on behalf of the applicant that agents namely Sandeep Kumar, Abha Pandey and Krishna Gopal, who was also the officer of the New India Assurance Company Limited, have been made approver by the C.B.I., however reasons best known to C.B.I. The applicant also was the general agent and he had not been made approver and thus he is facing trial and charge sheet has been filed against him.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during investigation he was not arrested and nothing incriminating has been found from the house of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused rather submits that his case is on better footing than that of co-accused Sandeep Dayal who has been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further contended that the applicant is not the beneficiary of the transaction which is the case set out in the charge sheet. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.01.2019.
It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant, Rohit Shukla, involved in Court case No. 1765/2018, Crime No. RC-0062016 A 0022, under Sections 120-B R/W, 409, 420, 471 I.P.C. and 13(2) R/w 13 (1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 65 I.T. Act, 2000 and substantive offence under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station - CBI/A.C.B. District - Lucknow, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 R.C.