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

2019 Supreme(Del) 963

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
R.K. GAUBA, J.
Sunil Gandhi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 903, 2458, 2459, 2460, 913, 905 of 2018, Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7413, 34478, 34479, 47549, 47550, 34480, 7422, 7456, 346435 of 2018, Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail) No. 1643 of 2018
Decided On : 04-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Ramesh Gupta, Adv., Vivek Kohli, Adv., Vivek Singh, Adv., Kushal Mangal, Adv., Bhavit Yadav, Adv., Dhristi Ahluwalia, Adv., Sanjay Lao, Adv., Amit Ahlawat, Adv., Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Adv., Laksh Khanna, Adv., Mahinder Kr Soni, Adv., Sanjay Abbot, Adv., Satya Prakash Yadav, Adv., K. Ramesh, Adv., Dayan Krishnan, Adv., Madhav Khurana, Adv., Varun Singh Thapa, Adv.

Headnote:

Bail - Economic Offences - Companies Act, 1956, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 173 Cr.PC - 82 Cr.PC - 409 IPC - 420 IPC - 34 IPC - 406 IPC - 120-B IPC - [Companies Act, 1956, Section 391, 393, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 173, 34, 406, 409, 420, 120-B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 82] - Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi, promoters and directors of M/S. A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., were arrested in connection with fraudulent diversion of funds from real estate projects. The court analyzed the evidence of fund diversion, non-cooperation with the probe, and the proposed revival scheme under the Companies Act, 1956, and concluded that the gravity of the economic offences and their impact on innocent investors warranted denial of bail to the petitioners.

Fact of the Case:

Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi, promoters and directors of M/S. A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., were arrested in connection with fraudulent diversion of funds from real estate projects. They sought bail, citing financial constraints and a proposed revival scheme under the Companies Act, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The court found evidence of fund diversion, non-cooperation with the probe, and serious impact on innocent investors. It concluded that the gravity of the economic offences warranted denial of bail to the petitioners.

Issues: Fraudulent diversion of funds, non-cooperation with the probe, proposed revival scheme under the Companies Act, 1956, impact on innocent investors.

Ratio Decidendi: The gravity of economic offences and their impact on innocent investors warranted denial of bail to the petitioners.

Final Decision: The petitions and applications were dismissed, and the interim orders were vacated. Surendra Kumar Hooda was directed to surrender back to custody, and Sunil Gandhi was directed to join the investigation without delay.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Gauba, J.

Petitioner Surendra Kumar Hooda was arrested in the course of investigation in three cases viz. first information report (FIR) nos.114/2016, 116/2016 and 64/2016, now under investigation with Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police. His applications for release on bail have been declined by the court of Sessions. By the captioned petitions instituted by him, he seeks orders for release on bail from this court. The allegations in the three said FIRs also attribute role to petitioner Sunil Gandhi. He had applied for release on anticipatory bail but his requests in the context of three cases have been declined by the court of Sessions. By the three other captioned petitions, he seeks such orders from this court. Since the three cases against the two petitioners arise out of certain common set of facts, their contentions being similar, all the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.

2. M/S. A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 504, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, 11, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. It has concededly been engaged in the business of real estate development. Petitioners Maj. (Retd.) Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi were concededly promoters and directors of the said company, they claiming to have resigned from the said positions in 2014-2015. Nonetheless, they have continued to control substantial share in the said company. On the basis of licences obtained by the company in 2010-2011, it had floated two projects, one called Spire Wood and the other called Spire Edge, each to be developed in different plots in district Gurugram (Haryana), the former for residential units and the latter to comprise of commercial or office space units. Pursuant to the publicity of the said projects made, a large number of public persons approached the company and made investments.

3. In the wake of delay in the completion of the said projects, and revelations statedly made of mis-representation vis-a-vis the prior approvals and the availability of lands free from all encumbrances, and certain acts of commission indulged in dishonestly resulting in siphoning of funds by the company and its directors, a large number of investors approached the police with their respective complaints, such grievances having, in turn, resulted in registration of the three cases viz. FIR no.114/2016 in police station Sarita Vihar under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on the complaint of Shikha Sadh; FIR no.116/2016 also of police station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC on the complaint of Renuka Kulkarni and FIR no.64/2016 of police station Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC. All the said three FIRs were eventually taken over for investigation by EOW.

4. A report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) dated 19.12.2017 was submitted in the context of FIR no.114/2016 in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East at Saket seeking prosecution of petitioner Surendra Kumar Hooda for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B, 34 IPC, the investigation concerning role of others being still pending. It is not disputed that the Magistrate took cognizance on the said charge-sheet, having issued process and secured the presence of Surendra Kumar Hooda (who was in judicial custody at that point of time). The case, however, is still at the threshold, some applications of certain complainants and the subject of scrutiny in the context of compliance with Section 207 Cr. PC being pending.

5. Surendra Kumar Hooda was arrested on 20.09.2017 in case FIR no.114/2016. While he was in custody in the said case, he was also formally arrested in the other two FIRs on 31.10.2017. He had applied for release on bail (by application nos.1873-5/2017) in the context of






























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