SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Decided On : 06-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr Rajesh Anand, Mr Anshuman Vashishta and Ms Harleen Kaur, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr Aashneet Singh, APP, for the State ACP Santan Singh, EOW.

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 eligibility.

Headnote:

Bail - Cheating - IPC 420/120B - [FIR No. 113/18, PS EOW] - [IPC 420, IPC 120B] - The court granted bail to the applicant, one of the directors of M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd., in a case where the builders were alleged to have cheated home buyers by not completing the project, diverting funds, and not obtaining necessary certificates. The court considered the delay in trial, the nature of the accusations, and the applicant's role in the company, and granted bail with conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved allegations that the builders of Amrapali Group cheated home buyers by not completing the project, diverting funds, and not obtaining necessary certificates. The applicant, a director of M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd., sought bail, claiming no direct involvement in the alleged offenses.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had been in custody for an extended period, the charges were yet to be framed, and the right to speedy trial and access to justice were fundamental rights. The court also noted that the applicant had already served more than half of the potential sentence.

Issues: The issues included the delay in trial, the nature of the accusations, the applicant's role in the company, and compliance with the Supreme Court's order to deposit a specified amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in trial and the applicant's extended pre-trial incarceration warranted granting bail. The court also considered the applicant's limited role in the company and the recovery of a significant amount as per the Supreme Court's order.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the applicant with specified conditions, emphasizing that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. This is an application seeking grant of bail in FIR No. 113/18, PS EOW, U/s 420/120B IPC.

2. The facts of the case are that FIR No. 113 of 2018, dated 21.05.2018, U/S 420/120B IPC, P.S. E.O.W. Delhi was registered on the complaint made by the residents of Amrapali Platinum, wherein the complainant Mr. Kovid Batra and 28 other residents had alleged that the Directors of M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. Company of Amrapali Group (Builders) had cheated them by not completing the project in time and diverted &misappropriated the funds of this project.

3. The Complainant/victims alleged the following allegation against the builders;

i. The builder has not finished the project; two lifts still need to be installed in accordance with the approved plan. The buildings' exteriors are still under construction, and work is still being done on them.

ii. The builders have already collected all of their payments, including the one-time lease charges that were to be paid to Noida Authority at the time of registration. The builder has not only delayed registration but has also not paid to Noida Authority, the money collected.

iii. The builder failed to get NOC from the relevant authority (i.e., an occupancy certificate), which led to the non-registration of the flats to individual buyers who have been living there since 2011.

iv. The builder departed from the authorised plan approved by the Noida Authority. Contrary to the approved plan, the builder failed to install two elevators totalling approximately Rs.1 crore in two buildings. Builders built flats and stores in the common space, departing from the approved plan approved by Noida Authority, leading to a severe shortage in the common area.

v. The builder has sold off fire refuge areas by misrepresenting them as terrace to buyers. This affects safety of residents as he converted public spaces into private spaces.

4. After obtaining papers or replies from the complainant and Noida Authority, the State was able to substantiate the allegations that the Occupancy certificate had not been obtained. The police discovered through the investigation that despite the builders receiving all of the monies from the buyers, the builders had not paid the dues to the Noida Authority. As a result, the complainants had been cheated by the accused persons, including the applicant. Hence, the FIR was filed.

5. During the process of investigation and on receipt of documents/replies from all the parties and it was revealed that:

i) As per the replies of the Noida Authority it was revealed that the Plot GH-001, located at Sector 119, Noida, UP vide lease deed dated 01.05.07 was allotted to Amrapali Patel Platinum (Consortium), a partnership firm. On scrutiny of documents, it became clear that the total premium of the Plot in question was Rs.98,64,50,000/-, out of which Rs.39,21,83,560/- were paid and the balance Rs.58,82,75,340/- was to be paid in 8 equal instalment upto 13.02.2011. But as per reply No. 499 dt. 09.07.19, the total present outstanding amount is Rs.205.13 Crores. On 14.08.2017, the Occupancy Certificate was not issued and the request was rejected. Further the Noida Authority in respect of the Project Amrapali Patel Platinum submitted a report with the Supreme Court in respect of ten towers i.e., Tower A to J and Club. There is provision of three lifts in each Tower. According to the report of the Noida Authority in Tower A one is under maintenance and two are functioning. In Tower C out of three lifts, two are functioning one is not functioning. In Tower D, out of three, two are functioning and one is to be installed. In Tower E, two are functioning and one is not installed. In Tower F, two are functioning and one is defective, and in Club, out of three lifts, two are functioning one is not installed.

ii) According to the ROC records Mr M. M. Sharma (2003-2012), Mr Anil Kumar Sharma (2005-till date), Mr Ajay Kumar (2003-till date, the applicant herein), Mr Shiv Priya (20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top