Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J
NITIN KUMAR SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2142/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Gosain, Mr. Nilanjan Dey
For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Kumar, Mr. Pranav Proothi
Bail can be granted on parity with co-accused, especially when significant time has elapsed without trial progress.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 439, 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B - Bail Application - The petitioner sought bail after being in custody since June 24, 2023, relating to a case of substantial financial offences given the allegations against M/s Asian Developers Ltd., which had no authority to sell certain properties. The petitioner's co-accused had been granted bail, thus qualifying for similar consideration. (Paras 23 and 24)
(B) Criminal Proceedings - The court assessed the conditions for bail, focusing on factors such as length of custody, status of the trial, and whether the accused had complied with interim bail conditions. The court found no substantial progress in the case warranting continued detention. (Paras 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was implicated for facilitating sales of properties without authority, leading to financial losses for buyers across 48 complaints totaling over ₹11 crores. Certain matters between complainants and the company were resolved, indicating an evolving situation.
Findings of Court:
The court prioritized the similarity of the petitioner’s role to that of a co-accused already released on bail, underlining fairness in judicial proceedings.
Issues: The court addressed whether the length of custody and absence of significant trial progress justified granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Judge reasoned that detention should not serve as a financial resolution method, and fairness in treatment of similarly situated individuals necessitated granting bail.
Result: The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis for bail (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of accusations (Para 4) |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR SHALINDER KAUR, J (ORAL)
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023, the petitioner seeks the grant of Regular Bail in FIR No. 152/2018 dated 24.07.2018 for offence under Sections 406 , 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by Sh. R.S. Rohilla and others. As per the complainants, M/s Asian Developers Ltd. had, in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2142/2024 Page 1 of 8 the year 2012, advertised for the booking of flats and shops. Relying on such advertisement, various buyers booked units and made payments towards the same. The construction work, it is stated, continued up to December 2013 but thereafter came to a halt. It is further alleged that the accused persons executed agreements with the buyers despite being fully aware that they had no authority to sell the said units. The fact that the plot in question had been allotted solely for the purpose of constructing dwelling units for the staff of M/s Saera Auto India Pvt. Ltd. was allegedly concealed from the buyers. The builder, it is stated, had also assured time bound possession within a period of 27 months.
3. During the course of investigation, it has come on record that 48 complaints have been received from victims in the present case, and the total amount paid by them to the company is Rs. 11,72,74,888/-. The investigation has revealed that plot, where the alleged project under the name ‘Bawal Residency ’was initiated by M/s Asian Developers Ltd. had not been allotted to the said company, which instead had been allotted to M/s Saera Auto India Pvt. Ltd. The investigation has further established that M/s Asian Developers Ltd. neither had any authority nor entitlement to sell or enter into Agreements to Sell in respect of any property as mentioned in the inventory/flat/shop pertaining to the project at the said plot.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that M/s Asian Developers Ltd., was well aware from the very inception, specifically from the date of the Agreement dated 16.11.2012 entered into with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 2142/2024 Page 2 of 8 M/s Saera Auto India Pvt. Ltd. about their role and power of not being authorized to sell or execute any document for transfer of above mentioned property on the said plot. Despite having no such authority, M/s Asian Developers Ltd. went on to induce and lure members of the general public to invest in and purchase flats or shops in the project under the name ‘Bawal Residency’. It is alleged that the accused company neither returned the money nor handed over possession.
5. During the investigation, notices under Section 41A Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 (Cr.P.C.) were duly served upon the petitioner at his available addresses. However, the petitioner deliberately chose to evade his arrest. Consequently, he was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 07.09.2021. Thereafter, on 24.06.2023, the petitioner was apprehended under Section 41(1)(C) Cr.P.C. by the staff of the Special Cell, Janakpuri, Delhi Police, and was arrested in the present case on 25.06.2023. It is stated that the supplementary charge sheet qua the present petitioner has already been filed.
6. It is submitted that out of total 48 complainants, 25 complainants/victims expressed that their matters have been settled with the accused persons and they received their settlement amounts.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 24.06.2023, and that no substantial proceedings have taken place in the matter since the filing of the Charge-Sheet. He further submits that the case is presently at the stage of consideration
