The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of SP leader Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar in the Bike Bot scam case.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar.
By means of the application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, the applicant Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar has prayed for his enlargement on bail in case under Sections 3 and 4 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Police Station Enforcement Directorate.
The relevant facts of the case which are required to be stated for deciding the bail application of applicant-Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar are that in the year 2017-2018 M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd (GIPL) and its promoter Sanjay Bhati, Chief Managing Director and others introduced / floated a scheme on 01.08.2017 at Khurpatal in Nainital in the name and style of BIKEBOT.
Initially they had asked the investors to bring in a commercial two-wheelers vehicle whereupon rent was fixed as Rs 459/- but later on they changed their scheme and decided to procure their own branded bikes and collect money in the company account.
Accordingly they floated BIKEBOT scheme informing that the said company has initiated a bike-taxi service similar to OLA and UBER taxis and people can invest in the scheme and get assured monthly returns / income up to 12 months by paying Rs. 62,100/- per bike and in lieu of the said investment, the investor would get Rs 9765/- per month up to 12 months. It was also assured that if anyone invests in three, five or seven bikes, would get a bonus of Rs 4590/-, Rs 9180/- and Rs 13,770/- respectively and after expiry of twelve month the bike would become the property of GIPL company.
The agreements with investors in this regard were executed by Sanjay Bhati (Managing Director of GIPL Company). On the assurance of GIPL company, its promoters and other associates, people invested their money in the said BIKEBOT scheme but the company stopped giving the monthly returns in December, 2018. On demanding monthly returns by the investors, the persons of GIPL Company started threatening them of dire consequences and refused to refund money invested by investors in the BIKEBOT scheme.
On mounting pressure by the investors, GIPL issued post dated cheques drawn on Noble Co-operative Bank to the investors but said cheques were returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds in the account of GIPL company.
In the aforesaid background of the fact, initially 25 FIRs (now number of FIRs increased to 55) were registered on various dates between 12.02.2019 and 25.04.2019 on the basis of complaint of various investors / individual persons regarding alleged offence of fraud and forgery of valuable securities, etc. under various sections including Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 I.P.C against the company GIPL, its promoter Mr. Sanjay Bhati and other Directors as well as various other associated / related accused persons at police station Dadri, District Gautambudh Nagar.
Thereafter, on 29.06.2019 Enforcement Directorate registered a case under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
During investigation, as per statement of Sanjay Bhati, Chief Managing Director, M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd had around 1.7 lakh customers from whom around Rs 2800 crores were collected, out of which, around 1800-2000 crores were paid back to the customers.
The Court observed that,
Having heard the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that it is not in dispute that the applicant has no role in fraud, etc. committed by M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd through the BIKEBOT scheme. The applicant is neither named in 55 FIRs lodged by the investors nor charge-sheeted in those cases. After registration of ECIR by the Enforcement Directorate, the complicity of Dhirendra Pal Solanki had come at initial stage of investigation in the statement dated 22.11.2019 and 23.11.2019 of Sanjay Bhati (Chief Managing Director of M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd) in which he has disclosed inter alia that Rs 20 crores, out of proceed of crime was transferred in the account of Dhirendra Pal Solanki, but till date, Enforcement Directorate has neither arrested Dhirendra Pal Solanki nor made him accused.
Vide order of the Court dated 4.3.2024, Enforcement Directorate was granted time to file an affidavit as to why till date Enforcement Directorate has not arrested Dhirendra Pal Solanki, whereas, proceeds of crime of BIKEBOT Scheme to the tune of Rs 17.94 crores was transferred from GIPL to the account of Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki and his complicity had come in the year 2019.
The Enforcement Directorate in compliance of order of the Court, filed an affidavit dated 15.03.2024 mentioning inter-alia that the role of Dhirendra Pal Solanki is also being investigated and efforts are being made to finalize the investigation with regard to transfer of proceeds of crime generated in the case by various entities.
The submission made by the counsel on behalf of Enforcement Directorate in this regard that since the investigation is going on, therefore, Dhirendra Pal Solanki has not been arrested is a vague / evasive reply and does not inspire confidence, which cannot be said to be reasonable and cogent.
On putting query by the Court, Kuldeep Srivastava, counsel appearing on behalf of Enforcement Directorate has fairly admits that proceeds of crime / amount of Rs 17,94,50,000/- was transferred from the account of G.I.P.L and has been credited in four accounts of Dhirendra Pal Solanki but from those four accounts, no amount has been transferred by Dhirendra Pal Solanki in the account of applicant-Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dingh Gujjar.
So far as allegation against the applicant that he had received Rs 5.23 crores in cash from Dhirendra Pal Solanki is concerned, there is no corroborative material to establish that any cash amount allegedly given by Dhirendra Pal Solanki has been deposited in the account of the applicant except the presumption drawn against the applicant.
I also find that accused Manoj Kumar Tyagi and Meena Anand have been granted bail, whereas Vijendra Singh, Mohd Wasiq Azad, Mohd. Shariq Azad and Narendra Singh Sisodia, have been granted anticipatory bail as noted above and the said bail orders or anticipatory bail orders have not been challenged by the Enforcement Directorate.
“So far as the twin conditions as provided in Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is concerned, it is well settled that the Court is not required to record a positive finding that accused has not committed an offence under the PML Act, 2002 and while releasing him on bail he will not commit an offence. The Court has to maintain a balance between the subsequent judgement of conviction or acquittal and is required to record reasonable reasons of satisfaction on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case with broad probabilities as to whether there is possibility of the accused committing a crime after grant of bail.
Applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2023 having no criminal history and maximum sentence for the alleged offence is up to seven years. It is well settled that judicial custody should be purposeful and cannot be punitive.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, detention period, present status of trial of the applicant, submissions of the counsel for the parties as noted above and the fact that there is no apprehension of absconding the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail”, the Court further observed while allowing the bail application.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant-Dinesh Singh Gujjar alias Dinesh Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not be involved in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned before the release of the applicant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.