TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 816
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant Director of Directorate of Enforcement against the applicant stating that SSP, Gautambudh Nagar had forwarded copies of 25 FIRs registered under various Sections including Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) and its promoter Sri Sanjay Bhati and other directors and various other accused persons between 12.02.2019 and 25.04.2019. 4. The company GIPL had launched a scheme inviting investments and it had assured to purchase motorcycles from the invested money and to use it as online taxi but the money invested was misappropriated and the same was not returned to the investors. 5. The applicant is not named as accused in any of the aforesaid FIRs and those had been filed against GIPL, its promoters, associates and other related persons alleging cheating and misappropriation of money by making false promises and forging documents. 6. After investigation, the police had submitted charge sheets in 5 FIRs mentioned in para 2.1 of the complaint and several persons were arrested. 7. Regarding the applicant, the allegations is that he was a director in various companies related to Pantel Group, promoted by one Vijendra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and besides the predicate offence the applicant has no criminal history. After lodging of the present case and after his arrest in the present case, the applicant has been implicated in another case bearing Case Crime No. 558/2021, under Section 2 & 3 U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The applicant has already been granted bail in the predicate offences by means of an order dated 09.06.2022 passed by this Court in Bail Application Nos. 6272/2022, 6585/2022, 6901/2022, 7104/2022 & 7143/2022 all of which have been decided by a common order. The applicant has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 558/2021 also by means of an order dated 11.08.2022 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 33926 of 2022. 12. Sri S.C. Misra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had already transferred the companies before lodging of the instant ECIR and he was not a Director of the company on the date of lodging of the FIR. He has further submitted that only allegation is that the applicant was Director in the company and there is no allegation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en moved to shell companies for rotation and concealing of true purpose of the transactions." 15. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In Rohit Tondan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ' The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a subsequent judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail'. 16. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant annexing therewith a copy of the statement of tto thehe first prosecution witness recorded by the trial court and in his cross examination, the said witness has categorically stated that he never met the applicant, he does n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decided in terms of the settlement arrived at through the process of mediation under which Rs. 135 crore were agreed to be paid to the applicant but the same was not done in spite of the settlement and the consequent orders passed by the High Court and thereafter the applicant has initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the amount which is still pending. The only allegation against the applicant is of having transferred the company and there is no allegation against the applicant of having acquired any company or any other property. Even while the applicant was a director in the company, there is no allegation that he was having the authority to make financial transactions and that he in fact did make any transaction which may amount to commission of any offence. What prima facie appears from the allegation levelled in the complaint is that there is absolutely no allegation of commission of any of act which may amount to commission of any offence and he has been charged with the alleged offences merely for the reason that he held the position of director in the company. 20. From the material placed before the Court at this stage, apart from being a director of the compa....