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

2024 Supreme(Del) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Mahajan, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Raveesh Vats - Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
Bail Appln. 3641 of 2023, Cr.M.A. 29645 of 2023 & Cr.M.A. 29647 of 2023
Decided On : 12-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Jain, Ms. Rabiya Thakur, Mr. Kartik Jasra, Mr. Prannit Stefano, Mr. Shivam Nagpal & Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Advocates, for the Applicant.
Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with SI Mukesh Chauhan, PS EOW Mandir Marg.
Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Advocate for complainant.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 over the property due to insolvency proceedings.

Headnote:

Regular Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B/420/409

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of siphoning funds from home buyers and non-completion of a housing project. The applicant was alleged to be an authorized signatory in the bank accounts of the developer and other group companies.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant had made out a case for grant of regular bail based on the documentary evidence, completion of investigation, and the approval of a Resolution Plan taking into account the claims of the home buyers.

Issues: The issues included the alleged siphoning of funds, non-completion of the housing project, and the applicant's role as an authorized signatory in the bank accounts of the developer and other group companies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the right to speedy trial, the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the need to consider the hardship of prolonged incarceration. The court also considered the approval of the Resolution Plan and the lack of control of the accused over the property due to insolvency proceedings.

Final Decision: The court granted the applicant regular bail with specific conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeking grant of regular bail in FIR No. 99/2017, for offences under Sections 120B/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing.

2. The FIR was registered against M/s Alpine Realtech Private Limited (hereafter `the developer') on a complaint made by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, who is stated to be an authorized representative of Ekdant Welfare Society- formed by the fifty-one aggrieved home buyers. The applicant is one of the authorized signatories in the bank accounts of the developer and was arrested on 26.03.2023 after being decaled a proclaimed officer.

3. The members of Ekdant Welfare Society are stated to be the buyers in the group housing project namely `FNG Ekdant' (hereafter `the project'). It is alleged that the developer had committed that the project will be completed and the possession will be handed over by September, 2014. Further, the developer had also promised in case of failure to deliver the project by March, 2015, the developer shall pay every allotee at the rate of .5/sq. ft., per month for the delay in handing over the possession.

4. It is alleged that despite passing of March, 2015, the developer failed to complete the project on time and had only constructed skeleton structures on the project site. It is further alleged that on being approached for the payment of the penalty for the delay in handing over the projects, the developer started making various excuses and had not paid any money. The developer, is alleged to be demanding more money for the completion of the project.

5. The chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet in the present case has already been filed. During the course of investigation, from the statement of the accounts of the developer in which payments were collected, it was revealed that approximately Rs.22,35,00,000/- have been withdrawn by way of cash and huge sums of money were transferred to the bank accounts of the other group companies, that is, M/s Ekdant Buildtech Private Limited, M/s Ekdant Infrabuild Private Limited, M/s Ekdant India Limited and other firms and companies of the accused persons.

6. It was also revealed that the signatures of Sujeet Singh and Anuj Mittal whose names were also shown as authorized signatory were found to be forged.

7. The allegations against the present applicant are that he is one of the authorized signatories in the bank accounts of the developer as well as other group companies which are evidenced from the account opening forms.

8. The present applicant is alleged to be one of the signatories since the opening of the bank account, maintained in the name of the developer, bearing no. 045301601000536 in Corporation Bank, from where a sum of Rs.15.51 crores was withdrawn as cash. Further, the present applicant is also authorized signatory in two more bank accounts bearing nos. 914020047069338 in Axis Bank and 07171100011137 in Punjab & Sind Bank.

9. On scrutiny of the bank accounts of the developer, it is alleged that the applicant and other accused persons have siphoned off major portions of money collected from the home buyers as cash withdrawals or by transferring the same to their other group companies. Majority of the withdrawals/fund transfers as stated in the charge sheet are reproduced below:

Account number of M/s Alpine Realtech Pvt. Ltd.Cash WithdrawalsEkdant India LtdEkdant Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.Ekdant Buildtech Pvt Ltd.Biofuel Industries04530160100053615,51,88,2942,78,51,0002,91,01,5388,37,37,00079,01,3959140200470693382,31,07,30029,43,0001,46,64,9951,19,37,25041,00,000Total17,82,95,5943,07,94,0004,37,66,5339,56,74,2401,20,01,395

SUBMISSIONS

10. The learned senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the chargesheet in the present case has already been filed and the custody of the applicant is not required for any further investigation. He submitted that all the evidence is documentary in natur

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