Nitin Mangal v State of Haryana and another

Punjab And Haryana High Court

 3 December 2012

Bench

SABINA Criminal Misc. No. M-29595 of 2012 (O & M) The Judgment was delivered by : Sabina, J. 1. This petition has been filed u/s. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 99 dated 8.8.2012 under Sections 383, 384, 420, 500, 506, 511, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66-A, 66-B and 75 of theInformation and Technology Act registered at Police Station Udyog Vihar Gurgaon. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. Petitioner was a co-author of a research report, which was released by Veritas Investment Research Corporation, a Canadian Organisation. The entire story of extortion had been fabricated. The FIR in question had been registered at the instance of respondent No.2, which was an influential company. Petitioner was merely working as a Chartered Accountant with Veritas Investment Research Corporation. 3. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that petitioner as well as his co-accused were guilty of serious offence. Petitioner and his co-accused Neeraj Monga had published a damaging report on 8.8.2012 with regard to Indiabulls stocks without ascertaining the facts and had caused huge loss to the said company. The report had been prepared on 1.8.2012 with an intention to extort money from the company but when the company did not succumb to the illegal demand of the accused, the report had been made public on 8.8.2012. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and has submitted that although the petitioner had joined investigation in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 6.11.2012 but had not cooperated with the investigating agency. The requisite recoveries were yet to be effected. Petitioner was required for custodial interrogation. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and his co-accused. The case of the complainant is that Veritas Investment Research Corporation is based in Canada and is purportedly carrying on business of research about Indian companies. Such research is carried out for the sole purpose of deriving personal benefits. The method adopted by the company is to extort money from the targeted companies and cheat the shareholders in a large amount by manipulating the scripts of the companies listed on stock exchange of India. Neeraj Monga of Veritas Investment Research Corporation contacted one of the sympathizers of Indiabulls Company and threatened him in the month of July 2012 that they were going to publish a very damaging report against the said company. The company was induced to pay US 50,000 dollars to avoid defamatory publication. Since there was no positive response from Indiabulls company, Neeraj Monga and the petitioner published a damaging report on August 8, 2012 about Indiabulls stocks without ascertaining the facts. The report although became public by August 8, 2012 but it was printed on August 1, 2012. This showed that the intention of the accused was to cause injury to Indiabulls by causing harm to its reputation and business. The false and incorrect report had been published as the Indiabulls group had not paid 50,000 dollars by way of subscription to their publication. On account of incorrect publication, the shareholders of Indiabulls were induced to sell their shares hurriedly so that the rates of their shares may not come down. Thus, the accused had cheated a large number of shareholders and had caused harm to the reputation and business of Indiabulls. 7. Petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail vide order dated 6.11.2012. In pursuance to the said order, petitioner has although joined investigation but has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency. The requisite recoveries have not been effected from the petitioner so far. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, keeping in view the seriousness of offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and the fact that he has failed to cooperate with the investigating agency during investigation, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. 8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed