IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Sushant Muttreja & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 1133/2019 & Crl.M.A. 16923/2020, BAIL APPLN. 1134/2019 & Crl.M.A. 16933/2020, BAIL APPLN. 1138/2019 & Crl.M.A. 6307/2020 & 16937-38/2020 and BAIL APPLN. 1139/2019 & Crl.M.A. 6308/2020 & 16935-36/2020
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Bail Application - Economic Offences - FIR No. 47/2016, 35/2016, 46/2016, 36/2016, 108/2017 - The court discussed the allegations and legal provisions related to the accused company's fraudulent activities, misappropriation of funds, and failure to complete projects, leading to various litigations and appointment of official liquidator. The court considered the petitioners' efforts for revival and arrangement of funds, but ultimately denied further extension of interim bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, ex-Directors of M/S Cosmic Structures Ltd., filed bail applications for multiple FIRs related to fraudulent activities, misappropriation of funds, and failure to complete projects. They sought interim bail for various durations to work on revival and arrangement of funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a huge delay in project completion and breach of obligations, resulting in various litigations. It noted the appointment of official liquidator and the petitioners' failure to convince the court about their proposed revival scheme. The court denied further extension of interim bail and directed the petitioners to surrender within three days.
Issues: Delay in project completion, breach of obligations, misappropriation of funds, appointment of official liquidator, petitioners' proposed revival scheme, and extension of interim bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioners' efforts for revival and arrangement of funds but ultimately denied further extension of interim bail due to the delay in project completion, breach of obligations, and lack of convincing proposal for revival.
Final Decision: The court denied further extension of interim bail and directed the petitioners to surrender within three days.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The above captioned first four petitions [Bail Appln.1133; 1134; 1138; 1139 of 2019] and sixth petition [Bail Appln.4191/2020] have been filed by petitioners- Sushant Muttreja and Nishant Muttreja. The above captioned fifth petition [Bail Appln.4121/2020] has been filed by petitioner -Nishant Muttreja. Both the petitioners- Sushant Muttreja and Nishant Muttreja are sons of late Subhash Muttreja and are ex-Directors of M/S Cosmic Structures Ltd.
2. Bail Appln. 1133/2019, pertains to FIR No. 47/2016, Bail Appln. 1134/2019 pertains to FIR No. 35/2016; Bail Appln. 1138/2019 pertains to FIR No. 46/2016 and Bail Appln. 1139/2019 pertains to FIR No. 36/2016, registered at Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi and by these petitions, petitioner-Sushant Muttreja is seeking interim bail for 06 months.
3. Bail Appln. No. 4191/2020 & Bail Appln.4121/2020 pertain to FIR No. 108/2017, registered at Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi and by these petitions, petitioner-Sushant Muttreja and Nishant Muttreja are seeking interim bail for 12 months.
4. The brief background of the case, as mentioned in Bail Appln. 1133/2019, pertaining to FIR No. 47/2016, are that the accused company-M/S Cosmic Structures Ltd was incorporated in the year 2011 and purchased 100% shares of M/S Splendor Info Park Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2014, to which Plot No 15, Sector KP V, Greater Noida, U.P. was allotted. It proposed to construct the commercial space IT/ ITES fully furnished office space for unit bearing No. A -187 measuring 201 Sq. ft in tower and shop space complex. Further the accused company proposed to construct three towers up to 11th floors and one mall with four shops as commercial and five floors as studio apartments for residence, three towers up to 11th floors and one mall with four shops as commercial and five floors as studio apartments for residence. In each tower it proposed to construct 1500 (approximately) dwelling units comprising of virtual space, lockable space, furnished units, fully furnished spaces, office spaces at the project sites. Besides this the company also proposed to construct 50 shops at each floors and 50 studio apartments on each floor. Besides this ground floor of each tower had various service units like restaurants, food courts, exhibition centre, medical centers, club, gym, banks, ATMs etc.
5. The allegations levelled FIR No. 35/2016 i.e. in Bail Appln. 1134/2019 are that in the year 2012, accused-company i.e. M/S Cosmic Structures Ltd purchased 100% shares of M/S Amplex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to which the project land at Plot No. 10, Tech Zone, Yamuna Express Way, Greater Noida, U.P, was allotted. Thereafter, it proposed to construct commercial space unfurnished divided unit bearing No. E- 101, measuring 1075 sq. ft in Tower -III on the first floor. Further it proposed to construct three towers up to 11th floor, one mall with four shops as commercial and five floors as studio apartments for residence. In each tower, it proposed to construct 1500 (approximately) dwelling units comprising of virtual space, lockable space, unfurnished units, fully furnished spaces, office spaces at the project sites. Besides this the company also proposed to construct 50 shops at each floors and 50 studio apartments on each floor. Besides this ground floor of each tower had various service units like restaurants, food courts, exhibition centre, medical centers, club, gym, banks, ATMs etc.
6. The allegations in FIR No. 46/2016, i.e. Bail Appln. 1138/2019 are that the accused company entered into an agreement dated 16.04.2013 with M/s Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd for transferring the share holding for the consideration of Rs 42 Crores to which the project namely COSMIC Corporate Park 154, Plot No. 1, Sector 154, Noida, U.P. was allotted. Thereafter, it proposed to construct the commercial space No. A-I-0125VBI-1297, measuring 210 Sq. Ft. lockable furnished space in Tower-I on the first floor at CCP- 154, Noida, U.P. Further
The court emphasized the importance of fulfilling obligations, preventing misappropriation of funds, and ensuring genuine efforts for project revival in economic offences cases.
The court considered the duration of custody, the nature of the offences, and the accused's cooperation in proposing schemes to revive the projects as key factors in granting bail in economic offence....
Bail applications must weigh the severity of fraud allegations and compliance with procedural requirements under criminal law before granting bail.
The presumption of innocence, completion of the investigation, and the need for stringent conditions for bail were central legal points established in the judgment.
The right to speedy trial, the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the consideration of the approval of the Resolution Plan in the context of the accused's lack of control ....
The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and the interest of society in deciding bail applications, considering the nature and seriousness of economic offences and their impact on ....
Economic offenses necessitate a strict approach in bail considerations due to their serious implications on public interest and financial health, as highlighted in previous judgments cited by the cou....
The court denied anticipatory bail despite the applicant's health condition due to serious allegations of multi-victim fraud, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to uncover financial mis....
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.