IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Garima Gupta And Other - Appellant
Versus
State And Other - Respondent
Bail Application No. No. 712 of 2019 and Crl. M.A. No. 34721 of 2019
Decided On : 01-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for regular bail and interim status (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details on allegations against the accused company (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's attempts for mediation and resolution (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. progress in mediation and settlements achieved (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. consequences of ongoing insolvency proceedings (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. legal assessments on bail application and accused's rights (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. judgment on granting bail and its terms (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. final disposal of the bail application (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner-Garima Gupta, presently on interim bail since 04.03.2019 in relation to FIR No.46/2018, PS EOW Cell, Mandir Marg, New Delhi dated 13.03.2018 registered under Sections 406 /409/420/120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, seeks the grant of regular bail in relation thereto. The applicant is indicated to have been arrested on 04.08.2018 and was in custody till 03.03.2019 with the charge sheet having been filed on 25.10.2018. The applicant vide the present bail application apart from seeking regular bail, had also sought the extension of interim bail granted to her from 04.03.2019 which was to expire on 18.03.2019.
2. Vide order dated 18.03.2019 in the present bail application, interim bail granted to her was extended on the same terms and conditions as set out in the order dated 25.02.2019 of the Court of the learned ASJ with the prayer made by the applicant before the Trial Court for extension of the period of interim bail having been declined vide order dated 14.03.2019. The said interim bail was thereafter extended vide orders dated 10.04.2019, 23.05.2019, 30.08.2019, 16.09.2019, 15.11.2019 and 10.01.2020 with it having been directed vide order dated 10.01.2020 that the application was heard with submissions made on behalf of either side and the status report in terms of order dated 15.11.2019 having been submitted on behalf of the State with an additional affidavit with annexures having been filed by the petitioner and that the interim order would continue till pronouncement of orders in the bail application under consideration.
3. As per the status report dated 06.04.2019 submitted by the State under the signatures of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Section-V:EOW : Delhi Police, Mandir Marg, New Delhi, the FIR No. 46/18, Dt. 13.03.18, U/s 406/409/420/120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, PS-EOW was registered on the joint complaint of Smt. Durga Kumari & 30 other complainants/investors against the Company M/s MSA Developers Pvt. Ltd. having its Regd. office at 11/37, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi with it having been alleged that in April 2013, the accused company namely MSA Developers Pvt. Ltd. had made a pre-launch of a project in the name of "MSA Circuit Heights" which was to come up at Plot No. GH-G4, Jaypee Greens Sports City, SDZ, Sector-25, Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP and that the said company had also brought out various representations through advertisements and brochures to allure the complainants to book the apartments/flats in the said project. It was submitted on behalf of the State through the said status report that the accused company and its representatives misled the investors that the said company had already acquired the requisite land and license to start the project and that the accused company had started accepting the booking much before the statutory approvals from the concerned authority and that the money collected from the complainants/investors were siphoned off to the different accounts.
4. The said status report states further to the effect that during the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused company had started collecting money from the complainants/investors for booking of the residential units in the said project without having the requisite approvals in place and at the ti
Babba vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) 11 SCC 569
Babu Singh vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0059/1978 (1978) 1 SCC 579
Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor MANU/SC/0089/1977 : (1978) 1 SCC 240
Gurcharan Singh and Ors. vs. State AIR 1978 SC 179
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.) MANU/SC/0420/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 118
Mahesh Kumar Bhawsinghka vs. State of Delhi MANU/SC/2641/2000 : (2000) 9 SCC 383
Moti Ram vs. State of M.P. MANU/SC/0132/1978 : (1978) 4 SCC 47
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1021/2010 : (2011) 1 SCC 694
State of Kerala vs. Raneef MANU/SC/0001/2011: (2011) 1 SCC 784
State of Rajasthan vs. Balchand MANU/SC/0152/1977: (1977) 4 SCC 308
State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi MANU/SC/0677/2005 : (2005) 8 SCC 21
Vaman Narain Ghiya vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/8394/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 281
Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0890/2000 : (2000) 9 SCC 443
AI
Point of Law : Offence alleged against the Appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the Appellants on bail....
The main legal point established is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the decision to grant bail should consider the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates release under Section 436-A of the CrPC after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period, regardless of the nature of the offence.
The gravity of an offence is a factor to be considered when granting bail, but it is not the only criterion. Other factors to be considered include the stage of the investigation, the nature of the e....
The court established that bail is the rule and imprisonment before trial is the exception; seriousness of charges and severity of punishment are critical in bail considerations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.