9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 161 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Bail - siphoning off of funds - defrauding large number of home buyers - petitioner urged since January 2021 the investigation is complete and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody - petitioner did not cooperate with the police nor provided requisite documents and rather changed the registered office of the company - HELD THAT - The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2020 after issuance of NBWs. A press statement dated 11.02.2020 was issued by the Delhi Police on its official website stating interalia sincere efforts were made to arrest the accused person, but all were absconding and all their possible hide outs were checked, but no clues were found. The allegations are apprehending his arrest the petitioner too had shifted his residence at various locations and ultimately was arrested from a hotel at Faridabad, Haryana. Even one of the co-accused A.K. Sirohi, a joint managing director was granted interim bail to perform last rites of his mother, but did not surrender, rather is declared a proclaimed offender. The allegations are the accused company has been giving undertakings to various Courts from time to time to settle or pay the amount to victims, but all such undertakings have been violated and if the petitioner is granted bail, the possibility of his again absconding from justice, as shown by his previous conduct, cannot be ruled out. A chart presented by petitioner before this Court is though to the effect he has spent more than the amount received from customers appear to be misleading as he seem to have suppressed the fact the company had taken loans from various financial institutions for the project to an appropriate extent of ₹ 271 Crores which makes its total liability as ₹ 560 Crores approx; and hence even if it is admitted they have allegedly spend ₹ 421 Crores, much of the amount has been siphoned off to different entities having no concern with the projects. The allegations are also the petitioner had tried to collude with initial IPR of M/s. Shah Infratech Private Limited and the NCLT per its order dated 05.04.2021 had noted of such collusion between accused person and IPR - the present FIR since pertain to multi-victims, wherein the petitioner has allegedly duped of the investors of ₹ 120 Crores, thus defrauded large number of home buyers; coupled with his conduct of having failed to cooperate during investigation, cannot be released on bail at this stage. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
Petition for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving charges under Section 420/406/120B IPC at police station Economic Offence Wing. Detailed Analysis: 1. Bail Application and Investigation Progress: The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving charges under Section 420/406/120B IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2020 and has been in judicial custody since 12.12.2020. The charge sheet was filed on 03.02.2021, and cognizance was taken on 06.02.2021. The petitioner argued that since January 2021, the investigation has been completed, and keeping the petitioner in custody serves no useful purpose. 2. Construction Progress and Allegations of Funds Misappropriation: The petitioner's company was involved in a project comprising three towers with a total of 330 flats. The construction progress was detailed for each tower. It was alleged that funds received from investors were siphoned off, although there was no accusation of evidence tampering. 3. State's Allegations and Multiple Complaints: The state contended that the petitioner diverted funds from complainants to personal real estate projects, affecting multiple investors. The petitioner faced charges in five cases under the NI Act and three other pending FIRs of similar nature. Concerns were raised about tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, and the possibility of absconding if granted bail. 4. Misleading Information and Financial Liabilities: A chart presented by the petitioner was deemed misleading, as it allegedly suppressed the company's total liability, including loans from financial institutions. The court noted discrepancies in the amount spent compared to the total liabilities, suggesting misappropriation to unrelated entities. 5. Precedent and Gravity of Accusations: Reference was made to a previous case where bail was denied due to the serious nature of accusations, affecting a large number of people and involving significant financial implications. The court highlighted the risk of tampering with evidence, threatening witnesses, and fleeing from justice given the high stakes involved. 6. Collusion Allegations and Multi-Victim Fraud: Allegations were made regarding collusion with an initial IPR and noted by the NCLT. The case involved multiple victims defrauded of significant amounts, leading to the dismissal of the bail petition due to the petitioner's lack of cooperation during the investigation and the gravity of the charges. In conclusion, the court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing the multi-victim nature of the fraud, the substantial amount involved, and the petitioner's conduct during the investigation as grounds for denial of bail.
|
