IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, emphasizing the right to speedy trial and the principle that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless necessary to ensure the accused's appearance at trial.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') for grant of Regular bail in FIR No. 54/2016, dated 05.05.2016, under Sections 406/420/120B/174A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.

2. The FIR No. 54/2016 was registered at the behest of a joint complaint of ten complainants, Ms. Nidhi Singh and others, alleging that M/s Value Infracon India Private Limited (hereafter `Company') had assured the complainants of providing flats in the Meadows Project but on the contrary defrauded the complainants by selling the already allotted flats to different buyers, multiple times. It was also alleged that the company had siphoned approximately Rs.10 crores, with regard to the booking of thirty-one flats received from the complainants, to the accounts of its sister concerns.

3. It is alleged that the company, through its Managing Director, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, who is the husband of the applicant, and other Directors, launched a housing project namely "Meadows Vistas" situated at Village Morta, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad. It was assured by the company that the project shall be completed within a period of three years from the date of booking and that the flats were free from all kinds of encumbrances and the title was clear.

4. It is alleged that the Directors, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh and the applicant, through their representatives, Mr. Ashish Verma, and Mr. Vipin Saroha, approached the potential investors to buy the flats in the said project. Believing the assurances, many investors, including the complainants, booked the flats in the said project vide tripartite agreements executed amongst the complainants, the company and the concerned banks, which extended the loans to the said purchasers.

5. It is alleged that the company made arrangements with the bank officials and sanctioned and disbursed the loans on the already allotted flat/units which were sold twice or thrice to different buyers. The complainant, Ms. Nidhi Singh, was shocked to know that the two flats No. A-126 and D-094, allotted to her, were further sold by the company to its sister concern, M/s Niparth Enterprises and Mrs. Vinita Kesarwani, respectively.

6. A total of twenty complaints were received at Economic Offences Wing, against the company, and the present FIR No. 54/2016, dated 05.05.2016, was registered under Sections 406/420/120B/174A of the IPC at Economic Offences Wing, Delhi. All the Directors, including the applicant, were made co-accused in the FIR.

7. The applicant was the director of the company from 30.09.2013 to 21.08.2014 and is also mentioned in the FIR as an accused. The applicant holds 11% of equity in M/s Niparth Enterprises.

8. It is alleged that the applicant and her husband did not join the investigation and were summoned multiple times. On 30.10.2018, the applicant and her husband were declared as proclaimed offenders by the learned CMM, Patiala House Courts, Delhi. Thereafter, on 07.12.2020, the applicant was arrested from her rental premise in C-701, Manish Nagar, 4 Bungalows, Andheri West, Mumbai and is in judicial custody since then.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a housewife, and mother of two children. She has been in judicial custody for more than 30 months. The applicant is the wife of the main accused, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, who deserted the applicant. He states that the two children of the applicant are living with their grandmother at the moment and are facing grave hardship because of limited resources, as all the accounts of the applicant are attached.

10. He submitted that the FIR was filed against the company and the applicant was named in the FIR only for the reason that she was the director of the company. She had no role in running the business of the company. She was merely a sleeping Director. He further submitted that the applicant visited the offi