1. FIR registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against a company director for non-delivery of flats and non-refund of payments. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 745
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
JITENDERA TANEJA - Appellants
Vs.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 151 /2021 [@ SLP [CRL.] NO.6080/2020]
Decided on : 19-02-2021
Important Points
The Court held that despite non-disclosure of previous bail rejections, an accused may be granted bail if the investigation is complete, the charge sheet is filed, and custodial interrogation is no longer required, as indefinite custody is impermissible, particularly when subsequent developments like NCLT resolution plans occur.
Subject
Bail - Cancellation of Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 227 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 406 and 420 - Cheating and dishonesty – Criminal Breach of trust - Appellant by the complainants under Section 406 and 420 of IPC ground that he was a Director in company the complainant(s) had booked flats - Allotment letters/builder buyer agreement was executed per cent of total cost was paid and possession was to be delivered till possession has not been delivered nor money had been returned back - FIR, appellant was arrested - Held, Substratum of arguments of learned senior counsel for appellant is that there was change in circumstances when Sessions Court set aside cognizance and appellant only got benefit of same and bail was granted next date it cannot be disputed that factum of fate of earlier bail application had not been specifically disclosed by appellant while seeking to take advantage of change of circumstances - Court have heard learned counsel for parties and though we certainly cannot approve conduct of appellant in not disclosing fate of the earlier bail applications while seeking bail on account of changed circumstances of cognizance having been set aside developments fact that the NCLT has approved the resolution plan; and that there cannot be an indefinite period of time for which appellant can be kept in custody; investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been filed - Appellant should be kept in custody as the purposes of custody in such a case is of significance to extent that custodial interrogation may be required to facilitate proper filing of a charge sheet - Court are thus of view that appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions to satisfaction of trial Court - appeal is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- corporate law
Table of Contents
2. Whether bail cancellation was justified due to non-disclosure of previous bail rejections despite a change in circumstances regarding the cognizance order. (Para 8 )
3. While non-disclosure of previous bail applications is disapproved, subsequent NCLT resolution plan approval and completion of investigation weigh in favor of bail. (Para 10 )
4. Custody should not be indefinite after investigation and charge-sheet filing if custodial interrogation is no longer required, regardless of prior conduct regarding bail applications. (Para 10 )
5. Appeal allowed; appellant to be enlarged on bail subject to terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does non-disclosure of previous bail rejections automatically justify continued detention?
Not necessarily. While the court may disapprove of such conduct, subsequent developments—such as the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT and the completion of the investigation—can outweigh the non-disclosure. (Para 10 )
7. When is continued custodial detention considered unjustified after a charge sheet is filed?
When the investigation is complete and the purpose of custody—specifically custodial interrogation to facilitate the filing of a charge sheet—has been served, indefinite detention is generally not acceptable. (Para 10 )
8. How does the approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT impact bail applications in criminal cases involving company directors?
The approval of a resolution plan by the NCLT is considered a significant subsequent development that can influence the court's decision to grant bail. (Para 10 )
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 very next day on 21.1.2020 and bail was granted.
6. In pursuance to the order dated 21.01.2020 of the Sessions Court, the trial court again bestowed its consideration and took cognizance on 28.01.2020. The complainant(s) moved the trial Court on 30.01.2020 alleging that while seeking bail, the appellant had not disclosed the factum of the dismissal of the earlier bail applications right till the High Court and on that ground alone bail was cancelled on the same day without notice to the appellant and the appellant was taken into custody again on 09.03.2020.
7. The order of the trial Court has been upheld by the Sessions Court on 24.02.2020 and thereafter the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court also met the same fate on 9.11.2020. It is these orders which are now sought to be assailed before us.
8. The substratum of the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that there was change in circumstances when the Sessions Court set aside the cognizance and the appellant only got the benefit of the same and bail was granted on 21.01.2020 on the next date. However, it cannot be disputed that the factum of the fate of the earlier bail application had not been specifically disclosed by the appellant while seeking to take advantage of the change of circumstances. It is this factor which weighed with the Courts subsequently i.e. the trial Court, Sessions Court and the High Court in cancelling the bail.
9. The other development which we are informed is that the NCLT is in seisin of the dispute and the resolution plan has also been approved. We may also note that the other Directors are not in custody being the father and the brother of the appellant.
10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and though we certainly cannot approve the conduct of the appellant in not disclosing the fate of the earlier bail applications while seeking bail on account of the changed circumstances of the cognizance having been set aside, in view of these subsequent developments, more so, the fact that the NCLT has approved the resolution plan; and that there cannot be an indefinite period of time for which the appellant can be kept in custody; the investigation having been completed and charge sheet having been filed, it cannot be accepted as a plea that till the trial is complete, the appellant should be kept in custody as the purposes of custody in such a case is of significance to the extent that custodial interrogation may be required to facilitate proper filing of a charge sheet.
11. We are thus of the view that the appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
