Point of Law: White collar crime - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Rejection of bail - Nature of offence, complicity of accused, fraud of huge amount, involvement of high echelons.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha and Sri Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned AGA-I for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 160 of 2020, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 7ka/8(1)(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-Hazratganj, District-Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. As per prosecution story, two persons, namely, Vaibhav Shukla and his friend Santosh Sharma are said to have met the Informant, Manjeet Singh Bhatia @ Rinku at his residence at Indore, Madhya Pradesh in the month of April, 2018. They are stated to have enquired from Informant whether he has flour mill and also about annual turnover of his business. Vaibhav Shukla belonged to a very respectable family and is a closed friend of the Informant. The said two persons, Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma are said to have taken documents of Informant's company pertaining to previous financial years and also the profile of Informant's company. They again visited the office of Informant and informed him that one S.K. Mittal who is stated to be the Deputy Director of Department of Animal Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh, had met them and he is very close to the Minister and they want to get him a supply order for supply of wheat, sugar, flour and pulses to the tune of Rs. 292.14 crores with the condition that a commission of 3% of the total amount of the supply order is to be provided in advance. The Informant asked them to get the time period extended as the supply order was too big for him. Santosh Sharma is stated to have assured him to get the time extended. The aforesaid two persons are said to have informed the Informant that they would also have their share in the profit and running the said business. On said promise and assurance of Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma, the Informant has paid huge amount to them which was to be provided to Secretary S.K. Mittal.

4. Thereafter, the Informant was called to Lucknow and is stated to have visited various places along with Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma and was even stated to have met the said Secretary S.K. Mittal at the Secretariat, Lucknow. The Informant is said to have informed S.K. Mittal that he shall require a godown to keep the said items for which Mittal had asked him to pay Rs. 72 lakhs to M/s R.K. Traders, U.P. as a rent for the said godown which was deposited in the bank account of M/s R.K. Traders by the Informant.

5. When Informant checked the online status of the Tender, nothing was found there only then he came to know about the fraud committed to him of Rs. 9,72,12,000/-. The Informant enquired from Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma about the said absence of Tender details on website whereupon they informed him that on 22.11.2018, they have to go to the office of CBCID as there have been some complaints with regard to the said Tender and an enquiry is being conducted. The Informant went to the office by CBCID, Lucknow where his entry was noted on a register and one constable took him to the S.P., CBCID who made certain queries from him regarding the Tender and even asked him to write on a paper that he had already supplied the said material for which he has got the order. On coming out of the gate of CBCID office, the said S.K. Mittal was found waiting outside and on being asked him, the Informant told him about the events at the CBCID office. At this, the said S.K. Mittal had asked him to go back to his home and also asked that he shall be informed further details through Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma.

6. On 26.12.2018, the Informant again met S.K. Mittal with Vaibhav Shukla and Santosh Sharma and then he asked the present applicant to provide him with a copy of the original work order, an undated bill book and also an af