Bail cannot be granted in cases involving serious allegations such as fraud and misrepresentation, especially when the accused poses a potential flight risk.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Allegations of criminal conspiracy and misrepresentation in real estate transactions - Applicant sought bail in connection with FIR concerning fraud related to non-existent property - Prosecution established that applicant was an authorized signatory and involved in transactions without prior approvals from authorities. (Paras 1, 2, 6)

(B) Principles of Bail - The court deliberated on the seriousness of the allegations, potential impact on the economy, and risk of flight, confirming that grounds for bail were not established. (Paras 8)

Facts of the case:
The case stemmed from a complaint against a real estate company for failing to deliver flats and misappropriating funds after receiving significant payments. The applicant, linked to the company, was implicated in issuing dishonored cheques and was alleged to be involved in a larger fraudulent scheme.

Findings of Court:
The court found substantial evidence indicating the applicant's involvement in alleged fraudulent activities affecting investors.

Issues: Whether the applicant had sufficient ties to the community to warrant bail and the severity of the crime.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the gravity of the fraudulent offense and the potential for the accused to evade justice if granted bail. The court stated that no grounds for bail were established.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. registration of fir based on alleged fraud. (Para 1 , 2)
2. investigation reveals payment discrepancies. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments against bail application presented. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's decision against granting bail based on concerns. (Para 7 , 8)

ORDER

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-sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document