Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20452 of 2019 Applicant :- Satendra Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Tiwari,Vinay Saran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Anand Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Attrey Dutt Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0421 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. and Section 13(1) (c) (d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant at the relevant time was working as Field Executive in Satyam Fashion Institute. M/s. Data Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Company is duly incorporated company which was incorporated on 28.06.2011 at the instance of the then promoters Ramesh Bansal and another who was engaged in business of sale and purchase of agricultural land, development, ploting and constructions of buildings for residential and non residential purposes. Initially Ramesh Bansal, his wife Sonia Bansal and Deepak Bansal were the directors of the said company who themselves used to look after day to day work of the said company on regular basis. The Board of Directors decided to purchase the agricultural land by passing resolution dated 13.02.2014 authorising Satyendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal (co-accused) to do all the act and execute all conveyance deeds. In March, 2014 a decision to purchase agricultural land pieces from various farmers in District Mathura and to execute sale deeds relating to such purchases was signed by the authorised signatory Satendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal. Later on Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "YEIDA") proposed to acquire/purchase land for Bajna entry exit ramps as well as land to the extent of 7% of residential purposes and other purposes. Ramesh Bansal, co- accused himself negotiated all the deals with YEIDA. All the necessary documents relating to transfer of land etc. in favour of the YEIDA have been executed by Satendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal on behalf of the company on 14.07.2014 on the basis of authority given to him vide resolution dated 12.03.2014. In the sale deeds itself it was mentioned that the cheques being the sale consideration of the said sale deeds were prepared by YEIDA on 18.06.2014 and the same were handed over to Satendra on the date of execution of sale deed dated 14.07.2014. The applicant (Satendra Chauhan S/o late Khem Chand) was having good relation with the then director of the company Ramesh Bansal and was requested by Sri Rakesh Bansal to become director of the company i.e. of M/s. Data Infrastructure Private Ltd. The applicant has not purchased any share nor has he invested a single penny in the company. He was appointed as director of the company on 11.07.2014 but much before that the negotiations for sale of land by the company to YEIDA was finalised through Satendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal. The applicant and the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar were authorized to open an account in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Noida for and on behalf of company for depositing the cheques relating to payment of YEIDA and a resolution was passed to that effect by the Board of Directors of company on 22.07.2014. Ramesh Bansal and his wife Smt. Sonia Bansal received huge payment from the said account of the company. Subsequently, the account maintained by the company in Citizen Co-operative Bank was operated by co-accused Ramesh Bansal himself and the statement of the account reveals that the cheque relating to payment from YEIDA had been deposited and Ramesh Bansal had withdrawn Rs. 1,90,00,000/- from the said account without informing the applicant. On 26.07.2014, the company, appointed auditors and the letter of appointment of the auditors was signed by Sonia Bansal, the director of the company. The company also furnished annual returns before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs under signatures of Ramesh Bansal. The company also filed return of income before the Income Tax Authorities for the assessment year 2014-2015 on 01.09.2014 under the signature of Ramesh Bansal. On 01.10.2014 Ramesh Bansal and his wife Sonia Bansal submitted their resignation from the post of directors of the company. The company was not a sham company as mentioned in the F.I.R. as Mr. Ramesh Bansal and Sonia Bansal remained actively engaged in day to day business of the said company till 01.10.2014. The company had been filing returns / balance sheets before the ROC as well as before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
It is further mentioned that the land of the company situated in village Madaur, Mathura has been identified by YEIDA for purchase on the basis of consent accorded by Ramesh Bansal and payment was received from YEIDA pertaining thereto which finds mentioned in the Income Tax Return. The company deposited all the cheques issued by the YEIDA against the compensatory value of the land belonging to the company which were deposited in duly opened OBC Account of the company and Ramesh Bansal had received huge amount out of it. The applicant is not related to any of the officers of YEIDA nor did he receive any benefit or the payment from the company or from Ramesh Bansal in the process.
Further it is mentioned that YEIDA was found and notified on 24.04.2001. For the consideration of road between Greater Noida to Agra commonly known as Yamuna Expressway, a concession agreement was executed between YEIDA and J.P. Associates Ltd., it was signed and executed by both the department on 07.02.2003. In the month of October, 2012 the road construction was completed and the Expressway was opened for public use. The land acquisition was made in five districts namely Gautam Buddha Nagar, Aligarh, Hathras, Mathura and Agra wherein 115 villages were lying and agricultural land was used for the said purpose. The State Government as well as YEIDA had promulgated a rehabilitation policy to provide 7% of acquired land to concerned farmers whose land has been acquired for the purposes of construction of Yamuna Expressway. However, even after completion of the road construction, the rehabilitation policy could not be implemented which led to agitation by the farmers. The concerned villagers of Mathura, whose land has been acquired made a demand for providing entry exit ramp to connect the Yamuna Expressway, the said demand after being considered, a decision was taken thereon by the State Government to construct entry-exit ramp which decision was declared by the Chief Minister himself, consequently, on 10.07.2013 the Government circulated the order of the Chief Minister for constructing the entry exit ramp. Pursuant to the order dated 10.07.2013 of YEIDA a general direction to purchase the land appurtenant to the proposed entry-exit ramp was issued. The implementation in district Mathura commenced after survey of land for the purpose of 7 % abadi land, entry-exit ramp and future development. The rate of purchase of the land was Rs. 768/- per square meter which was already finalized by the Board in its 47th meeting. During the said process when the identified land was under purchase, the Government of India issued new legislation by the name of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 30 of 2013) which was enforced with effect from 01.01.2014 and the State Government issued a letter for adopting the said Act on 17.01.2014. According to the new norms the rates of compensation of the land acquisition were revised and the rates pertaining to rural area where approximately four times of the existing circular rates and of urban area were two times of the exiting circular rates. The land purchased by YEIDA from the company was purchased after enforcement of new act and accordingly the company was paid sale consideration in accordance with the Board's decision dated 12.02.2014 and the consequential order dated 18.02.2014. Further it is argued that it is mentioned that subsequently due to change of government after general elections in State of U.P., a new chairman of YEIDA was appointed, who directed an enquiry through General Manager Planning with regard to the purchase of land in District Mathura. Consequently, a report was submitted by the General Manager and on the basis of said report, First Information Report was lodged at the instance of the authority by Gajendra Singh Inspector YEIDA which is the present F.I.R. in which 21 persons have been nominated as accused and the name of the accused applicant appears in the same. As per the allegations made in the F.I.R., the Chief Executive Officer of YEIDA and other concerned Officers are said to have been conspired and to have got their and kins purchase the land from farmers at low price and thereafter sell the same through sale deeds, by making the payment to their own kith and kins and close relatives at higher rates, in this way they have caused wrongfully gained to their relatives and caused wrongful loss to the authority. As per the F.I.R. purchase of 57.159 hectare land of no fruitful purpose, is said to have been purchased which is lying idle/useless as there was no use for it in future. In the transaction of purchase of land for the purpose of entry-exit ramp in proportion of 7% policy and for future development of the appurtenant land, number of irregularities have been highlighted in the F.I.R. particularly, it is mentioned that the land was purchased from scattered areas and higher prices had been paid in purchasing them and further that some of the lands have been purchased without approval of the Board and some of the land was not shown in agreement with M/s. J. P. Associates. Transparency was not adopted in following the Government settled norms in purchasing the land. Further it is mentioned that the applicant has been implicated in the present case only because of being director of the company on the date of execution of the sale deed by the company in favour of YEIDA on 14.07.2014. It is reiterated that the company who has said to have sold the land and received the payment, has not been made accused in the F.I.R. The applicant is in no way related with any of the officers of YEIDA nor has he been paid a single penny by the company. He is neither a public servant nor connected with YEIDA nor was he responsible for day to day working in any manner. No forged documents were submitted by the applicants. The land from 50 to 60 farmers was purchased on the basis of the consent of the farmers and only few of them have been implicated as accused. The rates of the land to be purchased with the consent were fixed by YEIDA Board which was based on the provisions of Act 30 of 2013, hence, no wrongful loss has been caused to the Development Authority. All the 55 to 60 farmers have got the compensation on the same terms and conditions. Further, it is mentioned that vide order dated 02.01.2019 bail has been granted to Ramesh Bansal, the then Director of the company and also to Sanjeev Kumar another director of the company, bail has been granted on 12.03.2019, who had purchased the land in his personal capacity and has sold the land to YEIDA subject to his depositing 25 % percent to the profit earned by him. It is further mentioned that the applicant had not purchased any land in his name nor had sold any land to YEIDA in his individual capacity. Ramesh Bansal the earlier director of the company had negotiated with the development authority for sale of their land through their authorised representative Satendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal and in presence of the said negotiations the sale consideration was paid on 12.06.2014 i.e. before the applicant was appointed as director. The sale consideration of Rs. 66,56,136/- and Rs. 2,10,94,158/- were received by the company prior to the appointment of the applicant as director. The applicant has no criminal history and if granted bail he would not misuse the liberty. He is lying in jail since 14.12.2018.
In Counter-Affidavit filed from the side of State on 18.09.2019, it is mentioned that the applicant was appointed in the Data Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. as director on 11.07.2014 and till date he is on the same post, the said company came into the existence in the year 2011 and Ramesh Bansal and his wife Sonia Bansal were appointed as its directors on 28.07.2011 and for purchase and sale of lands concerning this case was done by one Satendra S/o Turshan Pal (co-accused) who was authorised by the company and who had purchased 1.69 hectare land from the farmers. On 11.07.2014 two more directors were appointed in the company namely the present accused and Sanjeev Kumar (co-accused). On 14.07.2014, the co-accused Satendra Pal S/o Turshan Pal had sold the land which was purchased earlier, to Yamuna Vikas Pradhikaran to the tune of Rs. 2,78,50,294/-. When the said amount came into the new bank account which was opened by present accused-applicant and Sanjeev Kumar jointly, the transaction of the money was being made by these two persons. The charge-sheet has been submitted against both these accused on 08.03.2019 and against other accused persons investigation is going on. The charges have been framed against Sanjeev Kumar and six others including the present accused applicant on 02.06.2019. It is further mentioned that the accused applicant who was appointed as director in M/s. Data Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., in order to earn illegal benefits had made transactions and the relatives of the then O.S.D. namely Virpal Singh were also share-holders of the company. Before and after this incident this company had not sold or purchased any land. Since, the present applicant was made director of the company on 11.07.2014 he was having full obligation regarding the working of the company, hence it cannot be said that he did not earn any illegal benefit from the company. Both the accused namely Satendra Chauhan and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar were appointed as directors on 11.07.2014 and land was sold to YEIDA on 14.07.2014 and the illegal benefits which were obtained by the company were disposed of by the signature of the present accused and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar which shows clearly that they were actively involved and a total sum of Rs. 2,78,50,294/- was illegally earned by the said company which was disposed of by the signatures of the applicant as well as Sanjeev Kumar. Further it is mentioned though the applicant is not a Government Servant but he was in collusion with the public servants and had effected the conspiracy in order to earn illegal benefit.
During the arguments, the main thrust of the learned counsel for the applicant has been on highlighting the fact that initially there were three directors namely, Ramesh Bansal, his wife Sonia Bansal and one Deepak, out of whom Ramesh Bansal has been bail out from the trial court, copy of which has been provided, which is taken on record, against Sonia Bansal no charge-sheet has been submitted and her arrest has been stayed and against accused Deepak no charge sheet has been submitted. Thereafter, two directors were appointed namely, Satendra Chauhan (applicant) and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar out of whom Sanjeev Kumar has been granted bail by Co- Ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2019 in Bail Application No. 5072 of 2019 on following terms:
(I) Applicant will deposit an amount of Rs. 33,25,000/-(1/4th of the amount of alleged profit in possession i.e., Rs. 1,33,02,283/-)before the court below which shall be put in a Fixed Deposit Scheme of a Nationalised Bank bearing maximum rate of interest.
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail 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;
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law;
(vi) The applicant shall surrender his passport with the court below and not leave the country without court's permission;
(vii) Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified;"
It is further argued that other co-accused namely, Gaurav vide order dated 04.04.2019, Anil Kumar vide order dated 04.04.2019, Manoj Gupta vide order dated 04.04.2019 and Satendra vide order dated 26.04.2019, have been granted bail in this case, and copies of their bail orders are annexed.
Learned A.G.A. has submitted that bail of co-accused Pramod Kumar Gupta has been rejected by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2018 in Bail Application No. 37380 of 2018, hence the accused applicant has no ground to be granted bail and hence his bail should be rejected.
Since, co-accused Sanjeev Kumar, who had earned huge profit and hence was given bail by the Co-Ordinate Bench on condition of depositing 1/4th of profit earned in his possession, in this regard I find in Counter-Affidavit that there is no such mention made from the side of the State that any specific amount of profit had been earned by the applicant so that it could be taken into consideration, hence, I deem it proper that when the person who had earned profit has been granted bail by this Court, i.e. Sanjeev Kumar, if compared with him, the case of the present accused appears to be on better footing as no specific amount of profit is alleged to have been earned by him and as regards his incarceration he is lying in prison since 14.12.2018 which is not a lesser period than the period for which co-accused Sanjeev Kumar had been in prison before being bailed out. In this perspective of the case I find it to be a fit case for granting bail on parity.
Let the applicant Satendra Chauhan involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties(out of which one should be a family member) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court concerned and shall furnish an undertaking not to leave the country until permission is obtained by him from this Court till the conclusion of the trial.
(vi) The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and conclude the same on day to day basis strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C within a further of of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 VPS