Delhi High Court
Sumeet Malhotra vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 21 September, 2015
Author: P. S. Teji
$-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 426/2015
Date of Decision : September 21st, 2015
SUMEET MALHOTRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Chayan Sarkar, Mr.Karan Bindra
and Mr.Kumar Ankur, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Arun K. Sharma, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 for the grant of
ad-interim bail in FIR No.35/2014, Police Station-Barakhamba Road,
under Sections 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806.
2. The allegations levelled against the accused are that he received
a huge amount from the innocent public persons on the pretext of
developing and providing flats to them. It is further alleged that the
petitioner had no land or scheme in his name and had taken money
from the innocent persons fraudulently. When those persons
demanded their money back, the petitioner did not refund the same.
The petitioner had even agreed to pay a premium of Rs.500 per
square feet plus principal amount, but he failed to do so.
3. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that
the present dispute is civil in nature. The petitioner was an
underwriter of the project in Sector 95, Gurgaon and had to develop
the project after buying it from one Pal Infrastructure. He had made
the payment of Rs.6 crores for acquiring licenses to Pal Infrastructure
which is still in the process of acquiring the licenses. The petitioner
has already made the payment of Rs.5 lakh to the complainant as one
of the instalments. The petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2015. No
offence is made out against the petitioner in the charge sheet filed.
4. In support of the contentions, the petitioner has relied upon
judgment in case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40; Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and
others v. State of Bihar and another, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2983; State of
Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784 and Sukhwant Singh and others
v. State of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559. The ratio of the judgments
cited is that "bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception". It
was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that refusal of bail is a
restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner usurped
the money of the innocent buyers who booked the flat and invested
their money. It is further submitted that the petitioner took money
from the innocent persons for his personal use despite being well
aware of the fact that he had no licence to develop any project, as
claimed by him. Apart from the present case, a few more FIRs have
been registered against the petitioner with the same allegations. He
had taken the deposit of Rs.9 crores but did not develop any project.
6. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner/accused invited
money from the innocent flat buyers and got the deposit of about Rs.9
crores. The claim made by the petitioner that he had to develop the
project after obtaining „buying rights‟ from Pal Infrastructure, is of no
consequence in view the fact that despite not having any license to
develop any project or having any land to develop, he kept taking
money from the buyers under the inducement that flats would be
booked in their name. It is also apparent that the petitioner is taking
money from the innocent persons since 2011 without any licence.
7. It has come on record that the petitioner had no authority/locus
standi to develop the project or to provide flats to the customers, as
replied by Director Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Chandigarh.
Even the agreement between the petitioner and Pal Infrastructure was
not brought to the knowledge of the DTCP, Chandigarh with regard to
„buying rights‟ by the petitioner from Pal Infrastructure. The claimed
licence in favour of Pal Infrastructure was not transferable to any
person or to authorize any other person to collect the amount for
developing the project. In view of this position of the matter, the
petitioner cannot get any assistance from the judgments as mentioned
above.
8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, no ground is
made out to release the petitioner on bail. Application is dismissed
accordingly. However, it is made clear that the observations made
shall not affect the merits of the case.
P.S.TEJI, J
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
dd
