HC orders release of accused on bail arrested for offense of cheating and forgery in inviting deposits 

Introduction

In the instant case, the High Court released on bail an applicant who was accused of cheating and forgery in inviting deposits. The High Court held that since the complainant himself invested his money in an investment company run by the applicant, and therefore, he could not say that he was not aware of the volatility of the money market.

Case details: Aradhana Yadav v. State of M.P– [2021] 127 taxmann.com 470 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary & Counsel Details

• • Vivek Rusia, J.
  • Ashutosh Sharma, Ld. counsel for the Applicant.
  • Poorva Mahajan and Mukesh Kumawat, Ld. counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The complainant Suresh Chawla submitted a written complaint in the police station Banganga alleging commission of offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of the IPC.

According to the complainant, the present applicant along with the co-accused was running two investment companies in the name of Veliss Investment Solution and Goodwill Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. and invited deposits by offering a lucrative return of interest at the rate of 20% per month.

However, the complainant opened a Demat account in the name of his wife and given an ID and password to the accused. According to him, the accused lured him to invest Rs. 56,70,091/-, whereas, they did not return the deposit as well as interest as assured by them, therefore, they committed an offense of cheating and forgery.

In the FIR the complainant has admitted that he deposited the amount in the bank account of Goodwill Wealth Management in the name of his wife. No false assurance was ever given by the present applicant. When the complainant was getting a handsome amount of interest he did not make any complaint and during the Corona epidemic period when he did not get the return as per the assurance he made a complaint.

The Learned Panel Lawyer for the State as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/objector opposes the application by submitting that the applicant has not only cheated the complainant but hundreds of other local residents. As per the assurance given by the main accused as well as the present applicant, they have deposited their hard-earned money in the company of the present applicant but the same has not been returning so far, hence she is not entitled for bail.

As per the complainant, he himself opened the Demat account in the name of his wife and invested the money in anticipation of getting more returns than offered by the nationalized banks. He is an educated person and after understanding the scheme of the company he himself invested his money in the company, therefore, now he cannot say that he was not aware of the hidden risk and volatility of the money market. The applicant is in custody since 2-10-2020.

High Court’s Ruling

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case without commenting on the merits of the case, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her regular appearance before the trial Court during the trial with a condition that she shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

Before releasing the applicant from custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine her in order to rule out the possibility of COVID-19 infections and shall comply with the direction given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 1/2020