2022 Supreme(P&H) 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Virender Bagai and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M-53678-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53646-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53649-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53652-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53653-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53655-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53663-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53667-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53672-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53696-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53718-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53722-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53780-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53787-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53794-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53866-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53664-2021(O&M) with CRM-M-53685-2021(O&M)
Decided On : 07-01-2022

The judgment emphasized the grant of bail on stringent conditions in economic offences of huge magnitude and highlighted the provisions of Section 40 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, empowering the HRERA to recover amounts payable as arrears of land revenue and treat its orders as a decree of the civil court.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.PC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 406, Section 420, Section 120-B IPC, The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (2016 Act) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 40 of the 2016 Act, which empowered the HRERA to recover amounts payable as arrears of land revenue and treat its orders as a decree of the civil court. The court also referred to the observations made in the order dated 30.04.2019, highlighting the investment made by the promoters and the amount collected from the allottees. The judgment also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI” reported as 2012(1) SCC 40, which emphasized the grant of bail on stringent conditions in economic offences of huge magnitude.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Virender Bagai, was arrested under Section 406 and 420 IPC based on a complaint by Amrish Kumar Bansal, alleging fraud and non-delivery of a flat in a real estate project. The petitioner and his sister-in-law had invested more money than what was collected from the allottees. The prosecution argued that the funds received from the allottees were misutilized for purchasing property. The petitioner had been in custody for over 10 months and 15 days, with the trial likely to take a long time due to pending examination of witnesses and the impending 3rd wave of the Covid pandemic.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstances, including the pending trial, non-examination of witnesses, and the petitioner's prolonged custody, constituted a change in circumstances, entitling the petitioner to file a second set of regular bail applications. The court also noted certain admissions made by a witness, indicating a debatable issue regarding the nature of the case.

Issues: The issues involved the grant of regular bail to the petitioner, considering the prolonged custody, pending trial, and certain admissions made by a witness, which raised debatable issues regarding the nature of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was entitled to regular bail due to the change in circumstances, including the prolonged custody, pending trial, and certain admissions made by a witness, indicating a debatable issue regarding the nature of the case.

Final Decision: All 18 regular bail petitions were allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to certain conditions.