9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present applicant also reveals that huge amount of cash was withdrawn from his bank accounts. The present applicant is also involved in another FIR bearing no. 107/2017, Police Station Dwarka North, for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/34 IPC, which is pending trial. The applicant has, thus, misappropriated the hard earned money of 122 innocent victims to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. The bank account statement of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd reveals that out of Rs. 16.28 crores, only Rs. 4.31 crores was paid to the farmers/landowners for the purchase of land and about Rs. 12 crores have been misappropriated by the present accused/applicant. The fact make it clear that present case falls under the category of economic offences causing loss of hard earned money of innocent victims. The investigation qua many complaints against the present applicant is under way. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to grant bail to applicant at this stage - bail application dismissed. - Hon'ble Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma For the Petitioner : Mr. Satish Tamta, Sr. Adv with Mr. Puneet K. Rai and Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transactions kept on taking place, and an another MoU dated 12.04.2018 was executed between M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the Society, and three cheques totaling Rs. 11.85 crore were issued as security by the applicant which were subsequently dishonored. The present applicant was arrested on 18.08.2020 and chargesheet was filed against the applicant, his wife and the accused company on 13.11.2020. Further, supplementary chargesheet was filed on 24.02.2022 against other coaccused persons. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant states that the Society was formed in the year 2018 and by way of advertisement through various modes, people including government servants got allured and became members of the Society. As per the proposal made by the Society, land was to be purchased and flats were be constructed for the members of the Society. It is stated that money was collected and deposited in the account of Society, and treasurer namely Mr. Pradeep Kumar and the secretary namely Vimal Kumar were the authorized signatories for release of funds to M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. 4. It is argued by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est, ingredients of which are nowhere seem to be attracted in present case. 6. Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that no leniency be taken in the present case as hard earned money of 122 victims/ complainants has been misappropriated and siphoned off by the applicant. It is stated that even after the name of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was struck off by ROC, the accused company still kept on accepting money and even entered into an MoU with the Society. It is also submitted that applicant, being Director of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd. misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs. 12 crores and analysis of his bank account statements reveal that he had diverted these funds into various accounts, thereby misusing funds for his personal use and for payment of his personal debts. Learned APP for the State further submits that applicant is involved in another criminal case pending trial for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/34 of the IPC. As per learned APP for State, the bail application of present applicant ought to be rejected, considering the seriousness of the offence. 7. The submissions of learned Senior counsel for applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. **** 17. In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 after referring to several precedents, this Court held thus: 9. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of grave offence and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
