The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of former MP Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Bal Kumar Patel Alias Raj Kumar.
By means of the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, applicant-Bal Kumar Patel alias Raj Kumar, who is involved in Case under sections 406, 419 and 420 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
The facts of the case are that the complainant/informant Rama Kant Tripathi lodged an F.I.R on 11.10.2020 against the applicant Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar and co-accused Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi for the alleged offence under Section 406, 419 and 420 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda alleging inter-alia that he is a contractor and co-accused Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi is his relative, who is Lekhpal in Banda.
In March 2017, Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi came to his house and told him that there is huge work of sand in which if he invests once then he would have no tension for future.
On 14th December 2017 he told that on 17.12.2017 “Sahab” will be coming, who will make him a partner of ten percent. On 17.12.2017 he along with Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi went to the Irrigation Inspection Bungalow, Banda where he was introduced with Sahab, and then he came to know that Sahab is former Member of Parliament, Bal Kumar Patel, after which Chaturvedi told him to give money. Then Bal Kumar Patel told him that he will be in Rae Bareilly and he may deposit Rs 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) in his Account of Punjab National Bank.
Thereafter on 20.12.2017 he transferred Rs 5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) in the said account through RTGS but whenever he calls Bal Kumar Patel and ask him for getting the agreement done, he used to say for getting it done very soon. One day Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi called him and said that on 28.05.2018 Bal Kumar Patel is coming and will be meeting in the Inspection Bungalow as there is lot of sand and there will be a requirement of about 50-60 lac for which he is trying to make arrangement through his friends. Then contractor Rudra Prakash, contractor Satendra Shukla and his relative Yogesh Pandey agreed to invest money and on 28th May, they reached Inspection Bungalow where Bal Kumar Patel told them that a lease has been granted in favour of his son Sudhir and a required Rawana is to be filled.
On believing the same, Rudra Prakash gave Rs 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac), Satendra Shukla Rs 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lac) and Yogesh Pandey Rs 9,00,000/- (rupees nine lac) to which Yogesh was told that he would be a partner of only nine percent, on which he said that he would send the money or get it transferred through RTGS.
After that he transferred Rs 16,00,000/- (rupees sixteen lac) through RTGS in the account of Bal Kumar Patel. Since Bal Kumar Patel used to delay the talks, then on 27.12.2018 he sought information through RTI as to whether any file has been approved for lease of sand in the name of Sudhir, Rama Shanker Patel and Dev Sharan Patel for Manpur Khurd Naraini to which he did not get any reply. Then, he himself went to the concerned department, and on inquiry, he came to know that no such file is approved. When he tried to contact Bal Kumar Patel on phone, he used to tell his location either at Delhi, Rae Bareilly or Pratapgarh. Therefore he and his associates Rudra Prakash, Satendra Shukla and Yogesh Pandey have a belief that Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi and Bal Kumar Patel both committed cheating and fraud with them. Thereafter they demanded their money back, but he has not returned Rs 65,000,00/- (rupees sixty five lac).
After culmination of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant on 29.09.2021, on which the concerned court took cognizance on 02.11.2021. The applicant had preferred a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C and application under Section 482 CrPC. Both the above applications were heard together and rejected vide common order dated 09.12.2022 by the coordinate Bench of the Court.
The said order dated 09.12.2022 was challenged by the applicant before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal, in which by order dated 16.01.2023 the relief sought by the applicant for quashing the criminal proceeding was refused. However, on the question of anticipatory bail to the applicant, notice was issued.
Thereafter, vide order dated 20.03.2023, applicant was directed by the Supreme Court to appear before the investigating officer on 28.3.2023 and 29.3.2023. Accordingly, in compliance with said order of the Supreme Court, the applicant appeared before the Investigating Officer on 28.3.2023 and 29.3.2023 and a certificate of his appearance was issued by the Investigating Officer.
On the next hearing, the Supreme Court dismissed the above SLP, filed by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant surrendered on 18.8.2023 before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Banda and his regular bail application was rejected by Special Judge, MP/MLA, Banda vide order dated 23.8.2023.
The Court observed that,
In the case, main allegation against the applicant is that applicant and co-accused Bhanu Pratap Chaturvedi in collusion with each other, inducing the complainant and his associates Rudra Prakash, Satyendra Shukla and Yogesh Pandey extracted total Rs 60,00,000/- on the pretext of making them partner in the business of sand out of which, a sum of Rs 21,00,000/- was transferred through RTGS in the account of applicant in two installments and the remaining amount of Rs 39,00,000/- which was given by the associates of the complainant to the applicant in cash, has not return by the applicant. The Charge sheet against the applicant in this case was filed on 21.09.2021 and cognizance was taken on 02.11.2021. After issuance of non-bailable warrants and process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C, the applicant surrendered in the Court on 18.08.2023. The charge has been framed against the applicant on 30.11.2023. As per submission made on behalf of the informant/complainant, trial is being lingered on by the applicant adopting delaying tactics.
Applicant has criminal history of total 27 cases of different nature including the case.
The Court noted that in the case maximum punishment for the alleged offence against the applicant is up to seven years and applicant on his own is willing to deposit Rs 21,00,000/- (rupees twenty one lac) before the trial Court which had come in his account, but order sheets of both the cases reflect that on account of non cooperation of the applicant in the case as well as in the complainant case filed by the applicant, proceedings are not going on smoothly, whereas in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, speedy trial is the fundamental right of the accused as well victim. In the matter of M.P and M.L.A directions have also been issued by the Supreme Court for expeditious disposal of cases.
“Considering the long litigation up to the Supreme Court, overall facts and other attending circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, severity of punishment and non cooperation of the applicant in the Court proceedings as noted above, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail application.