Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.
Ajay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of NCT Of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Application No. 3630 of 2021
Decided On : 13-05-2022
Bail - Regular Bail - Sections 406/409/420/120-B of IPC - [Section 439 of Cr.PC] - [Sections 406/409/420/120-B of IPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code related to criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy, and cheating. The court highlighted the nature of the offense and the potential impact on the economy and the affected buyers, leading to the denial of bail to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in a case involving allegations of criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy, and cheating. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons sold/allotted flats in a project that was never sanctioned, and the petitioner, as an authorized signatory, was involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the nature of the offense could have a significant impact on the economy and the affected buyers, and there was a possibility of the accused jumping bail. Consequently, the court concluded that no grounds for bail were made out and dismissed the application.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's alleged involvement in the unauthorized sale/allotment of flats, the impact of the offense on the economy and affected buyers, and the potential risk of the accused jumping bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the nature of the offense, the petitioner's alleged involvement, and the potential consequences for the economy and affected buyers.
Final Decision: The application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J. - This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC filed on behalf of the petitioner in FIR No.201/2016 under Sections 406/409/420/120-B of IPC, Police Station EOW, New Delhi.
2. In brief, as per the case of prosecution, the FIR was registered on the complaint of anubhav Jain against M/s amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. and its directors/officials. Complainant alleged that in the month of November, 2011, the directors of M/s amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. approached him and represented that they shall hand over the vacant physical possession of 26 fully furnished flats in Tower G-1 in the project 'amrapali Silicon City' proposed to be developed at plot No. GH-1a, Sector 76, Noida by September, 2013. Being induced by the accused persons, the complainant agreed to invest in the said project and made full and final payment of Rs.6.60 crores against the said flats in November, 2011. On 11.08.2012, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also executed between the complainant and the accused company, wherein it was assured by the company that possession of the flats will be handed over by 30.09.2013. It was also agreed that on expiry of nine months from 13.08.2012, the investor (complainant) shall have the option either to continue with the booking or to take refund of the sum paid by the investor and 26 cheques of the principal amount were also handed over to the complainant, as security. Till then, the builder further agreed to compensate the investor by way of assured return of Rs.19,55,000/- per month and also handed over the 18 cheques for 9 months. The cheques of the principal amount given as security were dishonoured upon presentation in bank. Later on, it was revealed that Tower G-1 did not exist and was not even sanctioned in the project.
3. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that payments made by the complainant to accused company have been verified and found credited in the account M/s amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. in which ajay Kumar/petitioner is one of the authorized signatory. It was also revealed that as per MOU dated 11.08.2012, the accused has handed over 9 cheques of Rs.17,30,000/- of Bank of Maharashtra, Sector-62, Noida for the period from 13.08.2012 to 13.04.2013 and 9 cheques of Rs.2,25,000/- of axis Bank, Indirapuram (totaling Rs.1,75,95,000/-) of assured return for the above said period. The investigation conducted from the above banks revealed that account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra, was already inactive/closed on 14.06.2012 and account maintained with axis Bank had also been closed on 21.11.2012. Despite knowing this fact, the accused persons issued PDCs for assured return of a closed bank account.
4. It has also been pointed out by the learned aPP for the State that accused persons were in the custody of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, vide order dated 11.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.940/2017 titled Bikram Chatterji and Ors. vs. Union of India. Further, the State (EOW) had filed I.a. seeking their custody in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 28.02.2019 had given the custody of the three accused persons and also directed that 'Let the police investigate the entire gamut of the scenario of the various projects, as projected in this case and various orders passed and investigate the entire matter. Prima facie, we find that the case required serious investigation in the facts projected by the Directors, CFO and statutory auditors. The police is investigate the role of Mr. anil Mittal, Statutory auditor and Mr. Chander Wadhwa, CFO as well. The police may interrogate them and find out their criminality, if any, in the matter. Let, various order-sheets of this Court as well as the affidavits of Mr. Chander Wadhwa and Mr. anil Mittal and Directors of amrapali Group of Companies indicating the operational methods of diversion of funds and creation of company be also furnished to the Deputy Commissioner forthwith.'
5.
The denial of bail was influenced by the potential impact of the offense on the economy and the affected buyers, as well as the petitioner's alleged involvement in the unauthorized sale/allotment of ....
Bail cannot be granted in cases involving serious allegations such as fraud and misrepresentation, especially when the accused poses a potential flight risk.
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....
Bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and the right to speedy trial and justice is a fundamental right.
The right to speedy trial and access to justice as fundamental rights, and the consideration of the nature of accusations and the accused's role in the alleged offenses in determining bail eligibilit....
Serious allegations of fraud and misappropriation justify denial of bail; medical concerns do not outweigh risk factors associated with the case.
Economic offences involving systematic financial irregularities and large-scale misappropriation require judicial circumspection; custodial interrogation is necessary when investigating complex trail....
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 main legal point established is that an accused charged under a non-bailable offense, but with a compoundable nature and a maximum punishment of 3 years, may be granted bail after considering fac....
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
