IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Nishant Muttreja & Sushant Muttreja - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 150 of 2022 and Crl.M.(Bail) 662 of 2022, Bail Appln. 151 of 2022 and Crl.M.(Bail) 661 of 2022, Bail Appln. 152 of 2022 and Crl.M.(Bail) 658 of 2022, Bail Appln. 154 of 2022 and Crl.M.(Bail) 660 of 2022, Bail Appln. 155 of 2022 and Crl.M.(Bail
Decided On : 16-12-2022
Economic Offences - Bail Application - Sections 29(1) and 325 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the allegations against the applicants, the amount cheated, various schemes proposed, and the arguments of the State and complainant. The court referred to several cases related to bail in economic offences and granted bail to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were facing trial in various FIRs registered with Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and had filed bail applications. The allegations included ownership of lands, lack of necessary permissions, slow construction, non-payment of assured returns, and siphoning off booking amounts. The accused had proposed various schemes to revive the projects.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the allegations, the amount cheated, the proposed schemes, and the arguments of the State and complainant. It referred to several cases related to bail in economic offences and granted bail to the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be granted bail in economic offences considering the seriousness of the allegations and the amount cheated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the duration of custody, the nature of the offences, and the accused's cooperation in proposing schemes to revive the projects. It also referred to various cases related to bail in economic offences.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the accused on the basis of the facts presented and the legal principles established in related cases.
JUDGMENT
Yogesh Khanna, J.
1. Both petitioners are facing trial in various FIRs registered with Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and had filed the present bail application(s). The allegations against the present applicants are as under:
(i) M/s Cosmic Structures Ltd., (Company/Cosmic Group), was not the rightful owner of the lands on which projects were raised.
(ii) The Company was not having necessary permission/NOCs to raise the projects.
(iii) The Company was not having any approval of Noida/Greater Noida Authority for raising the projects.
(iv) Construction of the projects was very slow and the company did not hand over Units to the customers.
(v) The Company did not pay the Assured Return as promised by them.
(vi) The Company siphoned off the booking amount collected by them.
2. It is submitted the applicant has been roped in the FIRs for the sole reason they were discharging their duties in the capacity as directors but now have spent about five to six years in imprisonment in each FIR. It is stated under Section 420 IPC the imprisonment is extendable upto seven years; under Section 406 IPC the imprisonment is extendable upto three years with fine and for the offences under Section 409 IPC the imprisonment is extendable upto ten years plus fine or life.
3. Reference was made to Sections 29(1) and 325 Cr.P.C. to show the manner in which the trial and conviction under Section 409 IPC is done and the punishment if it is to be granted by the learned ACMM exceeding three/seven years.
4. It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the total amount allegedly cheated in the present FIR is approximately Rs.148.00 crores. Admittedly, out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.76.00 crores have been invested; Rs.29.00 crores and Rs.4.50 crores is lying in subsidiary companies which amount admittedly stood frozen by the Investigating Officer and thus only Rs.38.70 crores is the alleged cheated amount. It is submitted before the NCLT various efforts are being made by the petitioners to revive the schemes and one such scheme No.01/2020 was rather filed on 19.08.2019, but objections were filed by interested parties. On 06.04.2022 the Company Court ordered since the ex-directors of the company are in judicial custody it is difficult to accept the ex- management would be in a position to sustain any viable scheme. The accused company also propounded a scheme with M/s.Good Living Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Bhutani Group) in October, 2020 vide company appeal no.631/2020 which proposed to invest an amount of Rs.300 crores and also proposed an option to the customers to get a unit in Bhutani's project in exchange. The accused company propounded yet another scheme with M/s.Renowned Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. vide Company Appeal no.76/2021 who proposed to invest an amount of Rs.50.00 crores and collaborate with the company for development of two projects but no order has since been passed.
5. The customer's association also propounded a scheme with M/s.Alpha Corp. in October, 2020 vide C.A.(Main) No.02/2020 who proposed to invest Rs.100 crores by taking loan on properties of liquidating companies but such scheme was also dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2022 stating inter alia the essential rationale of the scheme is to realize the value of the assets of the liquidating company and there was no upfront payment.
6. Various other schemes were also filed by M/s.Cosmic Unit Buyers Association and Cosmic Victims Association but were not accepted. It is also the case of the petitioners they had given the assured returns to customers till March, 2015.
7. On the other hand the learned ASC for the State has alleged the applicant/accused being directors were running group of companies with a sole object to cheat the investors. They opened various shell companies to siphon off the funds and were the directors in those companies as well. They have caused material damage to the economy and the trust required in order to ensure other legitimate pro
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....
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 balanced the right to personal liberty with the need for the accused's presence at trial, emphasizing that continued custody should be based on the risk of interference in the administratio....
Bail should not be denied solely based on the seriousness of the charges; considerations must include the necessity of ensuring the accused's presence at trial and not obstructing justice.
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 ....
It is made clear that these observations are only for purpose of disposal of present bail applications, and will not prejudice parties in trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the severity and magnitude of economic offences, along with the accused's involvement in corruption, forgery, and fraud, warrant a different a....
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.