SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 745

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY
JITENDERA TANEJA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


ORDER :

1. Applications for impleadment as respondent No.3 and permission to appear and argue in person are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. An FIR was registered against the appellant by the complainants under Section 406 and 420 of the IPC on 11.1.2018 on the ground that he was a Director in the company named JNC Constructions Pvt. Ltd. in which the complainant(s) had booked flats in August, 2014. The allotment letters/builder buyer agreement was executed in September, 2014 and 95 per cent of the total cost was paid and possession was to be delivered by May, 2015 but till date the possession has not been delivered nor the money had been returned back. In pursuance to the FIR, the appellant was arrested on 07.08.2019. The charge sheet was filed on 29.08.2019 and the endeavour of the appellant to seek bail was rejected on 17.12.2019 and that failure continued right till the High Court.

4. On 4.09.2019, the trial Court took cognizance of the charge sheet but the same was assailed with the Sessions Court which set aside the order dated 4.9.2019 in terms of an order dated 20.1.2020.

5. It appears that the appellant taking advantage of the aforesaid aspect, immediately applied for bail the ver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top