Location/place: Rudrapur /Noida
Name of company/service: Landmark Infrastructure
Dear all
he claims to be a fake DRI
here is the proof
Dear All
I and My family have have been a victim in Gagandeep singh scam he has made us beg and got us on street today he has opened a company known as landmark infrastructure a MLM company which is a fraud company on which he is doing a land banking at rudrapur and His partner is a scam maker Mr Ashutosh Negi From Rudrapur and Noida
there is a case against him he threatens himself to be a DRI
Ashutosh Negi vs State Of U.P. on 28 January, 2010
Court No. – 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 33377 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ashutosh Negi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- H.C.Mishra
Respondent Counsel :- Govt Advocate
Hon’ble Surendra Singh,J.
Applicant- Ashutosh Negi seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1204 of 2008 under Sections 420,409,467,468,471 IPC, Police Station Sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manu Khare and Sushil Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant that the applicant is the high income tax payee person. He had source of income by holding the post of Director in ASN Infrastructure Developers Private Ltd. and BNB Hotels Private Ltd. And also from property dealing, colonizing at Rudrapur as well as at Noida. He further submits that during the course of investigation two witnesses, namely, Sammati Jain and Jagdish Kandari have admitted in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the Cheque No. 445169 was delivered to the applicant by the informant Suneel Dhoopar in their presence. Both the witnesses have further admitted that they have seen their transaction of delivering cheque and signatures were made in the memorandum of understanding (hereinafter referred to as M.O.U.)dated 22.4.2008. He next argued that the applicant has also lodged a report under Sections 406,420,506 IPC at P.S. Link Road, District Ghaziabad vide Crime No.357 of 2008 on 23.7.2008 against the first informant Suneel Dhoopar and in order to save his skin and to put undue pressure on the applicant, the present FIR is the out come. He has further pointed out that the handwriting expert has certified the handwriting of the first informant on the receipt-cum memorandum of understanding dated 22.4.2008 and the cheque in question. He next argued that he presented the aforesaid cheque in question (Cheque No. 445169), dated 23.7.2008 drawn on bank sector-18, Noida in his bank Axix Bank Account, at Rudrapur, District U.S. Nagar Uttrakhand on 28.7.2008 but the cheque was dishonored. Aggrieved of non-payment of Rs.5.45 Crores the applicant filed a criminal case under the provisions of N.I. Act on 15.10.2008 and the applicant was summoned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar (Uttrakhand). The summoning order was challenged by the informant before the Uttrakhand High Court but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 3.3.2009. He further submits that apparently dispute between the parties appear to be essentially civil and contractual in nature which have been given colour of the criminal case and the present FIR has been instituted for settling scores or pressurizing the parties to settle dispute. He further pointed out that the applicant is in jail since 12.9.2009 and the trial has not commenced and is likely to consume some time to conclude. Moreover, there are scanty chances of his fleeing away from the judicial process and tamper the prosecution witnesses.
The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. as well as by the learned counsel for the informant and contended that as per allegation in the FIR, the informant was appointed as a Manager , Human Resource in the firm of M/s Blond-N-BLISS. He further contended that the first informant has transferred Rs. 1.5 lacs through Cheque No.386904, dated 27.6.2007 and simultaneously Cheque No.445169 issued on 22.6.2007 was misappropriated and Rs.5.45 Crores was entered and deposited for payment in the bank and for that cheque he also prepared a forged document (M.O.U.) in relation to this cheque on 22.4.2008 and the writing of the informant was not approved by the handwriting expert. He further contends that the informant, who was employer of the accused applicant, has become the victim of fraud committed by the accused-applicant who has betrayed the trust reposed upon him. It is further submitted that the aforesaid M.O.U. Dated 22.4.2008 is purely a forged document created by the applicant himself in order to falsely create liability of Rs.5.45 Crores on the informant so that the old cheque No.445169, which the informant had handed over to him for making payment on his behalf relating to certain propertial transaction on 22.6.2007 and which, according to the accused applicant, was said to have been wrongly filled up and therefore destroyed by him can be put up to misuse for causing wrongful loss to the informant. It was next argued that it is further absurd to think that such huge loan of Rs.5.45 Crores can be advanced by the accused-applicant to the informant on cash and without maintaining any account of it and, moreover, the applicant was neither having any financial capacity to advance such a huge loan nor could he possibly make such advance in contravention of U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 and also in teeth of Section 269SS of I.T. Act. Thus keeping in view of these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to be set at liberty.
The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered.
Considering the totality of circumstances of the case, I consider it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant- Ashutosh Negi involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned and executing an undertaking in the following terms that:
1. The applicant will not indulge in any such activity in future.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and tamper evidence during trial.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.
In case of breach of the above conditions, the prosecution would be at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
Order Date :- 28.1.2010
Mt/
after reading the order copy kinldy be aware these guys become cbi, dri, commissioner and do fraud raids.
They also blackmail companys to extort money by making fraud proofs.
Beware off this guy
Leave a Reply