Point of Law : Grant of Bail - Considering the period of incarceration and ground of parity, the bail application.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 123/2019 under Sections 420/406/120B IPC and 4/5/6 of Prize Chits and Money circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 registered at Police Station EOW, Delhi.

2. In brief the facts of the case are that a number of victims have filed complaint against accused Tarun Kumar (petitioner herein), Sanjay Bhati & ors. of M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited having its registered office at Plot No.-l, Chiti, Dadri, Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh regarding cheating of Rupees forty-two thousand crores approximately. It is alleged that accused persons induced the victims to invest Rs. 62,000/- for a bike and were assured that they will receive Rs. 9,500/- monthly including principal and rental income on a bike for one year. Due to lucrative offers floated by the accused persons, number of victims invested their hard-earned money in huge sums into this scheme. In January 2019, accused company launched Electric-Bike scheme and offered to investors that they can deposit Rs.1,24,000/- for a bike and assured that they will receive Rs. 17,000/- per month till one year. Initially, accused company repaid the assured amount but after winning confidence of the investors, they absconded. On the basis of allegations leveled and enquiry conducted, the instant FIR was lodged.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the state and perused the status report filed by the state.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the allegations made in the FIR have no relation with the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is running in judicial custody since 13.08.2019 and was formally arrested in this case on 24.11.2021. It is further submitted that it is wrong to suggest that the petitioner has received huge sum out of the investments made by the complainants as the petitioner did not receive any benefit or remuneration from the company apart from the salary to which he is entitled against his job and services to the said company. It is further submitted that at the time of employment the company fixed the salary of petitioner to be Rs 80,000/- per month and the salary of the petitioner was transferred in his bank account. It is further submitted that investigating officer as well as prosecution has failed to establish the role of the petitioner and further failed to prove their story as petitioner being the main entrenched in the present FIR. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the entire tenure of petitioner’s employment with Garvit Innovative Promotors Limited, the petitioner had no connection with the ponzi “Bike Bot Scheme” nor was he aware with the day-to-day affairs of the “Bike Bot”. It is further submitted that from perusal of the entire material on record, it is evident that the whole inflow of money has been directly credited to the bank account of the company by the investors and the remittance of any returns have directly been made from the bank account itself and as such not a single penny has been misappropriated by the petitioner. It is further submitted that chargesheet has been filed in this case and no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons are on bail and petitioner seeks parity. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. &anr, (2018) 3 SCC 22.

5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and the Company induced investments from gullible and innocent people by offering lucrative returns and floating theponzi ‘Bike Bot Scheme’. It is further submitted that