Point of Law : Inducement to customers - Bail granted - Admittedly, there is no allegation/proof of siphoning off of funds against him and as alleged he was not a signatory of bank account of company, maintained with Bank of Baroda from where diversion of funds is alleged.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC) for regular bail to petitioner in case FIR No.165/2018 registered under Section 409/420/120B IPC at police station EOW, Mandir Marg, New Delhi.

2. The allegations are the petitioner was inducted as a director in M/s. Realcraft Buildtech Private Limited since 02.07.2012 to the extent of 86% share holdings and also director in M/s Primerose Infratech Private Limited since 26.07.2021 to the extent of 36% share holding. The grievance of the complainants are they had invested in the projects to be raised by M/s Realcraft Buildtech Private Limited and despite making the payments of money, they never received the flats and their money have been siphoned off.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submit this FIR was registered on 13.08.2018 and petitioner though initially joined the investigation, but later was arrested on 09.11.2019. The charge sheet has since been filed before learned Trial Court and investigation is thus complete. It is argued after filing of the charge sheet, there is no progress in the case; the charges have not been framed against the petitioner; 83 witnesses have been cited to prove 3661 odd documents during trial, which would certainly take a long period.

4. It is submitted there were five directors of the companies namely –

a) petitioner herein;

(b) Parmod Kumar Aggarwal;

(c) Brij Bhushan Gupta;

(d) Manmohan Bansal and

(e) Jayesh Sharma; out of whom, Brij Bhushan Gupta has since been granted regular bail per order dated 01.02.2021 by the learned Trial Court on his deposit of Rs.4.00 Crores; and Parmod Kumar Aggarwal has been granted anticipatory bail by learned Trial Court per order dated 05.04.2021; accused Manmohan Bansal and Jayesh Sharma have not been arrested.

5. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner per charge sheet, M/s Primerose Infratech Private Limited was having its bank account with Bank of Baroda, Greater NOIDA, UP – 201308 and its authorised signatories were Brij Bhushan Gupta and Manmohan Bansal. It is argued accused Brij Bhushan Gupta has already been granted bail and Manmohan Bansal was never arrested despite he being an authorised signatory of M/s Primerose Infratech Private Limited. Further, per charge sheet, the role ascribed to the petitioner is of only of being a director in abovesaid two companies. It is alleged he could not justify the bookings made by M/s Realcraft Buildtech Private Limited prior to necessary approvals and also qua diversion of funds. The allegations of inducement to the customers are also made against him. All the flat buyers ‘agreements have since been signed by him. The petitioner alleges to have received only an amount of Rs.1.62 Crores as salary for five years with effect from March, 2013 to October 2017.

6. Admittedly, there is no allegation/proof of siphoning off of the funds against him and as alleged he was not a signatory of bank account of M/s Primerose Infratech Private Limited, maintained with Bank of Baroda from where diversion of funds is alleged.

7. Admittedly, the bail order dated 01.02.2021 of accused Brij Bhushan Gupta (Annexure E) reveal there were allegations of siphoning off the funds, yet was granted regular bail by the Court. The observation made in order dated 01.02.2021 are relevant:-

2. xxxx

The bail is sought on the following grounds:

A. xxx

B. xxx

C. That the IO even after custodial interrogation of the accused and detailed investigation, has not brought on record any details of the alleged siphoned off amount of 55 crores (approximately). The IO has failed to file the exact extent of amount which has been siphoned off, in order to bridge the gap between the initial report of the IO which stated the siphoned amount as Rs 2 crores and the consequent report of the RP which stated the a