Point of Law: Since the genesis of the statutory right to anticipatory bail is traced under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is essential to understand the true import of the same.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The present applications have been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) on behalf of the applicants praying for anticipatory bail in FIR bearing no. 237/2018 registered at Police Station - Economic Offences Wing, for offences punishable under Sections 406/420/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”).

2. Since, the three anticipatory bail applications bearing no. 3067/2018, 1116/2019 and 1119/2019 have arisen out of the same FIR, pertaining to the same set of facts, and have been heard together, therefore the same are decided and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

3. As per the FIR, the prosecution story is as follows:

(a) Pawan Bhatia had approached M/s. Splendor Landbase Limited (“Complainant Company”) in December 2012 and represented that he along with his wife, Sangeeta Bhatia and his son, Laksh Bhatia were the lawful owners of a land measuring 13.61 acres in the revenue estate of Village Ullawas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, situated in Sector 63-A, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as “said land”) which was free from all encumbrances. It is further alleged that Pawan Bhatia represented that the said land was eligible for being developed into a Group Housing Colony after taking approvals from Director of Town and Country Planning (“DTCP”) Haryana.

(b) Pawan Bhatia had assured that all the necessary approvals from the Competent Authority will be taken by landowners, and that the Letter of Intent (“LOI”) from the DTCP for Group Housing Colony was expected soon. It is further alleged that Pawan Bhatia and other accused offered the Complainant Company to sell and transfer the Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 5 Lakhs Square Feet out of the total FSI of 11 Lakhs Square Feet for a total of Rs. 200 crores with exclusive rights to undertake the development and construction of the Group Housing Colony.

(c) Based on the aforesaid representations and inducements, the complainant company had entered into an MOU dated 27th February 2013 with the accused persons. It is further alleged that Pawan Bhatia signed the MOU for himself and on behalf of the other accused. It is further alleged that the Land Schedule which had been annexed with the MOU was signed by the applicant and other accused persons.

(d) Based on the representations, the complainant company was induced into agreeing to pay an amount of Rs. 5 crores to the accused. It is further alleged that the complainant company prior to the execution of the MOU paid an amount of Rs. 2.50 crores and the balance amount of Rs. 2.50 crores were subsequently paid as per Clause 2 of the MOU. It is further alleged that Complainant Company enquired from the accused persons about the status of LOI, the accused persons started dilly dallying and never responded to the queries of the complainant company.

(e) On enquiries made by the Complainant Company, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that no LOI had been granted to the accused persons. It is further alleged that it was agreed by the parties that in case the LOI is not granted within a reasonable period of time, the complainant company would make a request for refund of the initial advance. It is further alleged that the Managing Director of the complainant company Hridey Vikram sent several messages to Pawan Bhatia requesting to refund the amount, but he never replied to such messages.

(f) The Complainant Company made further enquiry about the said land, and it was revealed that many litigations were pending qua the said land. The complainant company further alleged that a MOU with CHD Elite Realtech was executed on 8th August 2011 and the accused persons had received an amount of Rs. 2 crores. It is further alleged that the accused had the dishonest intention since the beginning of the transaction and with the same mens rea the accused had concealed and kept the complainant company in dark about the execution o