Vineet Mittal v State of Uttar Pradesh

Allahabad High Court

25 April 2013

Bail No. – 2099 of 2013

Bench

Anurag Kumar

The Order of the Court was as follows :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This is a bail application moved by the accused applicant, Vineet Mittal, who is involved in Case Crime No. 259 of 2009, under Sections 467, 468, 420 I.P.C. and 71/72, Information Technology Act, 2000, P.S. Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that the complainant Sri Rakesh Pratap singh lodged an F.I.R. on 12.04.2009 with the allegation that he is the Managing Director of Shiv Garh Resort Ltd. and he has obtained facility of digital signature from Government and is using that facility. He received a letter of thank regarding digital signature. On enquiry, it reveals that one Dileep Dixit has prepared another false digital signature. Complainant immediately cancelled that signature. It appears that through preparation of digital signature someone intend to use it to change the structure of the company and for committing fraud in company.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the allegation of F.I.R. no case is made out against him. Only some doubt is expressed by the complainant that by preparing another digital signature someone is intending to change the character of company and for committing fraud in company. No overt act was alleged against the applicant that what fraud he has committed or by using that digital signature in what manner he will be benefited. The F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2009 and in his first statement the complainant neither said about the applicant nor in his subsequent statement he said anything against him. Later on, first time on 20.04.2012, the complainant said regarding applicant that applicant with the help of Dilip Dixit by preparing digital signature wants to change the management of Shivgarh Resorts Ltd. in order to grab the property of company. As per F.I.R., complainant cancelled digital signature immediately. Previous to this F.I.R., there is no criminal history of the applicant. After this F.I.R., the complainant and his employee Satendra lodged two false F.I.Rs. against him and applicant was falsely implicated in six more cases by Sahara India Group in which he was working previously and from where he was dismissed from the services by the said Sahara India Group. Offences are triable by Magistrate. Applicant is in jail since 27.01.2013 as alleged in para 1 of the supplementary affidavit. Request for bail was made.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the contention and submitted that there is clear allegation against the applicant regarding preparing false digital signature of complainant. Applicant-accused used that digital signature in loading on net Form 23 and company’s resolution and lease deed for ulterior motive. He can use that signature for changing the management of the company and changing its structure. The applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases and most of the offences are of forgery. Looking into the criminal history of the applicant, he is not entitled for bail. In this respect, learned counsel for the complainant has relied on (2013) 2 SCC 177, N. Kannapan v. State (Union Territory) Andaman & Nicobar Island 2013 Indlaw SC 5, wherein, Hon’ble Apex Court in para 20 had held as under:

“Having considered the assertions made at the hands of the rival parties, we are satisfied, that there is prima facie material to establish the involvement of the petitioners in activities violating the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The consequences of such violation are extremely serious. The minimum punishment on conviction is 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. For more serious activities, the punishment can extend to imprisonment for life, and with death penalty. In the pleadings, and during the course of hearing, we were informed, that some of the accused are still absconding. Obviously all the accused are financially well placed. Releasing them from jail at the present juncture, when the prosecution has not even commenced to examine the main witnesses, could prove detrimental to the eventual outcome of the trial. Atleast till the culmination of the evidence of the material witnesses, it is not proper to order the release of the petitioners on bail. In the facts and circumstances noticed hereinabove, we hereby decline the prayer for bail made by the petitioners. The impugned orders passed by the High Court are accordingly affirmed.”

6. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that from the above finding it is clear that in the present case also the applicant is not entitled for bail. Considering the submission of both side and going through the record, it is clear that the only allegation against the applicant is that he may use digital signature in changing the management of the company and by using that signature he may grab the property of the company. There is no evidence against the applicant that he in any way either change the management or grab the property of the company by preparing any forged document. Regarding criminal history of the applicant, it is well settled proposition of law that only on the basis of criminal history of any person his bail cannot be refused. In N. Kannapan 2013 Indlaw SC 5 (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the said law in reference to Explosive of Substance Act case. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

7. Let the accused applicant, Vineet Mittal, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Application allowed