2016 (10) TMI 1272 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of regular bail - siphoning of funds - investments of projects - It is the grievance of the complainants/investors that more than 60 months have lapsed since their investment and the accused have not completed the construction at the project sites let alone delivered possession - allegation of cheating forgery and criminal breach of trust. HELD THAT - The nature of accusations in the present case is very serious and grave. The status report filed by the State on 13.07.2016 discloses that a total of 870 complaints in the subject three FIRS have been filed and total cheated amount has been calculated to the tune of 380 Cr. which is likely to increase - Evidently the present case appears to be a multi-victim scam. The applicant accused as it prima facie appears has duped more than 1500 investors to invest in his alleged project at Manesar and Gurgaon. This has been solely achieved by painting a rosy picture before the investors of them getting lucrative returns on the investments made. The applicant while presenting various schemes have depicted association with and sponsorship from nationalized banks the veracity of which remains questionable. It further raises suspicion on the conduct of the accused/ applicant as to why they reduced the sale price consideration in the sale agreements executed between the accused company and the investors. The accused deducted TDS on the assured returns promised but apparently the same has not been deposited with the Income Tax Department thus prima facie raising a possibility of misappropriation. Prima facie there appears to be force in the case of the prosecution that the accused right from the beginning had the intention to cheat and defraud the investors and to misappropriate their investments. Moreover the applicant is accused of cheating in not just the subject FIRs but around 13 other FIRs have been registered against him arising from similar transactions. In light of the above there can be no doubt that the nature of accusations is serious and weighty in nature. The Court is conscious of the law that a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate discussion of merits cannot be undertaken but the Court while exercising its discretion is duty bound to indicate the reasons to conclude why bail is being granted or refused on prima facie look at the possible evidence and circumstances. The charge-sheet statements of investors duped documents seized by the Police photographs of the projects sites winding up petitions prima facie establish the fraudulent character and dishonest intentions of the accused/ applicant. The nature and gravity of accusations against the accused is serious. The grant of regular bail in a case involving cheating criminal breach of trust by an agent of such a large magnitude of money affecting a very large number of people would also have an adverse impact not only in the progress of the case but also on the trust of the criminal justice system that people repose. Bail application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Regular bail applications under Section 439 of CrPC.
2. Allegations of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust.
3. Examination of the applicant's business practices and project completion status.
4. Analysis of charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheets.
5. Consideration of applicant's submissions and opposition by the prosecution.
6. Judicial discretion in granting bail in economic offences.
7. Impact of granting bail on public trust and justice system.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Regular Bail Applications under Section 439 of CrPC:
The applicant, Mr. Sunil Dahiya, filed three bail applications under Section 439 of the CrPC for regular bail related to three FIRs. These FIRs allege similar offenses, and the applications were heard together.

2. Allegations of Cheating, Forgery, and Criminal Breach of Trust:
The complainants allege that they invested around ?600 crores in the applicant's projects, which were siphoned off by the applicant and his family members. The projects involved the construction of IT parks in Gurgaon and Manesar. The complainants claim that the applicant invited investments through false assurances of lucrative returns and failed to deliver on these promises.

3. Examination of the Applicant's Business Practices and Project Completion Status:
The applicant's projects, "Aquarius" and "Darsons and Kisson I Valley," were supposed to be completed within 60 months, with assured returns of 9% to 12% per month. However, the complainants allege that the construction was not completed, and the assured returns were not paid from April 2014 onwards. The investigation revealed that only partial construction was done, and no units were handed over to investors.

4. Analysis of Charge-sheets and Supplementary Charge-sheets:
Charge-sheets filed on 29.12.2014 and supplementary charge-sheets added the applicant's brother and father as co-accused. The investigation revealed that the applicant received funds from investors before obtaining necessary permissions and misappropriated these funds. The charge-sheets also highlighted the applicant's failure to complete the projects and the misuse of funds for personal luxuries.

5. Consideration of Applicant's Submissions and Opposition by the Prosecution:
The applicant argued that the case was civil in nature, involving breach of contract, and not criminal. He claimed that the projects were delayed due to lack of government approvals and that he had paid assured returns diligently until 2013. The prosecution opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's fraudulent intent, misuse of funds, and the large number of affected investors.

6. Judicial Discretion in Granting Bail in Economic Offences:
The court considered the seriousness of the accusations, the severity of potential punishment, and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice. The court referred to precedents that emphasized the need for a cautious approach in granting bail for economic offenses involving large-scale fraud.

7. Impact of Granting Bail on Public Trust and Justice System:
The court noted that the applicant's actions had a significant adverse impact on a large number of investors and the public trust in the justice system. Granting bail in such a case would undermine the criminal justice system and potentially allow the applicant to tamper with evidence or flee.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the bail applications, emphasizing the serious nature of the accusations, the potential for severe punishment, and the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or fleeing. The court highlighted the need to maintain public trust in the justice system and the importance of addressing economic offenses with a stringent approach.

← Previous Next →