9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ans by the competent authority in 2011 and approval of revised layout plan in 2014. Mere partial completion of the projects cannot absolve the functionaries as it cannot be ignored that the site was ultimately abandoned on account of illegal diversion of funds, which were required to be used for the purpose of completion of projects. Merely because the petitioner may not have been a Director at the relevant time when the bookings were made, as claimed, does not absolve the petitioner of his responsibility as the funds were diverted with his active role and were within his knowledge. The fact that the accused has been in custody since 26.04.2019 and the trial is likely to take some time cannot be the sole governing factors for releasing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint of Sh. Chandra Kant Singh and seven other victims/home buyers who had booked their housing units in group housing projects. During investigation, more than 450 victims filed complaints, who had also booked their housing units in the group housing projects M/s Amrapali Dream Valley-I and M/s Amrapali Dream Valley-II alleging similar nature of grievances. The aforesaid projects were proposed to be developed at Plot No. GH-09, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 3. It is further the case of prosecution that the allotment-cum-Flat Buyer Agreements were executed in favour of home buyers during 2011 to 2013 and the possession of the flats/Villas was to be delivered during the period 2014 to 2016. However, neither the posse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant period and were also the authorised signatory in bank account of the company. The documents of the company were further seized by the forensic auditor vide order dated 10.10.2018 in writ petition no.940/2017 filed in the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses the application for bail on following grounds:- (i) That the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.04.2019 and the matter is still pending at the stage of arguments on charge, owing to COVID19 pandemic. (ii) That the petitioner is one of the directors of the holding company of Amrapali Group of companies M/s Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. with the meagre shareholding of 3.2% with no executive powers and was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e projects. (v) The petitioner is stated to have been made authorized signatory along with others in Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. in terms of the board resolution of the company with a mandate to act in terms of the instructions given and had no role to play beyond the authorization and limits. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not a Director in Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. when the complainant booked his flat and was a Director merely for the period from 05.07.2013 to 20.12.2016. (vi) Reliance is also placed upon the following judgments in support of the contentions:- (a) Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5191/2021 decided on 11.07.2022; (b) Jayant Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is also made to part of the forensic audit report dated 25.03.2019. Reliance is also placed upon State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal Others (1987) 2 SCC 364 and Nimagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466. 8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised and perused the record. At the outset, it may be observed that more than 450 victims await for the possession of the housing units, which were agreed to be delivered within a period of 36 months along with an additional grace period of 6 months since 2014 to 2016. It is important to keep in perspective as to the reasons for the non-construction/development activities not being undertaken at the project sites to evaluate the role of the petitioner despite approval of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant time and, as such, it does not appear to be a case of vicarious liability, as claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned APP for the State has also pointed out that though only a part of the forensic audit has been referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner to claim that the petitioner was responsible for only construction and coordination but it has been concealed that the forensic audit states that the petitioner received funds from Amrapali Group of Companies, which were used for acquiring personal properties. 9. The principles for grant of bail as referred in the judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner are well settled. However, it has been held in Nimagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
