Delhi High Court
Manohar Sitaram Patil vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 4 April, 2022
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04th April, 2022
+ BAIL APPLN. 1042/2022
MANOHAR SITARAM PATIL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kunal A. Cheema & Mr.Vatsalya
Vigya, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Avi Singh, ASC for the State with
Mr. Karan Dhalla & Ms. Mizba
Dhebar, Advocates with SI
Dharmendra Pratap Singh, PS EOW,
Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)
%
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
hybrid mode [physical and virtual hearing].
CRL. M.A. 6140/2022(Exemption)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 1042/2022
1. By way of this application under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafter, "CrPC"], the applicant seeks
regular bail in connection with FIR No. 112/2010, dated 29.07.2010,
registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
Sections 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereinafter,
"IPC"].
2. The FIR was registered on a complaint dated 29.07.2010, filed
by one Ajeet Gupta, who was an employee of Indian Farmers
Fertilizer Cooperative Limited [hereinafter, "IFFCO"]. It was alleged
in the complaint that the employees of IFFCO entered into certain
monetary transactions with one M/s Pragati Land and Housing
Corporation ["hereinafter, "PLHC"], of which the applicant is a
partner. By way of these transactions, PLHC was to deliver plots to
its investors in the project "Pragati Valley" by 15.05.2007. It was
further alleged that around 114 employees of IFFCO booked their
plots in the said project and paid a total of Rs 1.25 crores to PLHC.
The complainant further alleges that PLHC, however, neither
delivered the plots, nor refunded the amount which was collected from
the employees of IFFCO. It is further alleged that the applicant,
alongwith his other co-accused, duped innocent employees of IFFCO
by misrepresenting that they had purchased 300 acres of land in
Karjat, District Raigad, Maharashtra for developing their residential
township.
3. The applicant was arrested in connection with the present FIR
on 19.09.2014. By an order dated 27.05.2015, passed by the learned
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [hereinafter, "CMM'], the applicant
herein was granted interim bail for a period of 120 days. It is noted in
the order of the CMM that the accused sought interim bail on the
ground that he had already settled the disputes with the complainant
pursuant to which they had entered into a Memorandum of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
Understanding, and a sum of Rs. 62,48,203/-, out of the total collected
money, was already paid to them through 115 Demand Drafts. He
further prayed that he be released on interim bail for raising the
remaining 50% funds for settling the disputes with the persons who
were defrauded by PLHC. The interim bail was extended by various
orders of the CMM until 2017, primarily on the ground that the
applicant is willing to settle the matter with the investors and that he
needs more time to return the money to the affected persons.
4. However, by an order dated 19.07.2017, the applicant's
application for exemption from personal appearance was rejected by
the CMM, and non-bailable warrants [hereinafter, "NBWs"] were
issued against him. The personal bond as well as the surety bond was
forfeited and notice to the sureties under Section 446 of the CrPC was
issued. It was also noted in this order that the accused persons did not
contact the complainant for settlement and that they were deliberately
trying to delay the proceedings before the Trial Court. The applicant
did not enter appearance before the Trial Court even after the issuance
of the NBWs, and subsequently proceedings under Sections 82 and 83
of the CrPC were commenced against him. He, alongwith the other
co-accused, was, therefore, declared a Proclaimed Offender
[hereinafter, "PO"] by an order dated 08.05.2018, passed by the
CMM.
5. The applicant was arrested from Karjat, Maharasthra [where he
was in judicial custody in relation to some other case] on 19.08.2021
in connection with another FIR [FIR No 220/2011, PS EOW], and was
taken into custody in the present case on 17.09.2021 by the Link
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
Metropolitan Magistrate. The applicant's application for bail has since
been rejected by the CMM vide an order dated 09.12.2021, and by the
Sessions Court vide an order dated 06.01.2022.
6. The order of the CMM dated 09.12.2021, inter alia records that
after filing of the chargesheet, the accused and other co-accused
stopped appearing before the Trial Court, as a result of which the trial
has also been delayed. It is also noted in the order that the applicant
has been arrested after great efforts of the police. The CMM, while
rejecting the bail application, noted that the previous conduct of the
applicant was not suitable for him to be enlarged on bail.
7. The applicant thereafter filed his first bail application under
Section 439 of the CrPC before the Sessions Court, which came to be
rejected on 06.01.2022. The application was rejected inter alia on the
ground that PLCH, in which the applicant was a partner, had collected
huge amount of money from the general public on the pretext of
selling them plots. Further, it noted that the allegations against the
applicant were not only in respect of cheating people, but also
committing forgery of documents. It was unearthed during the
investigation that the accused did not have the requisite permissions
from the government and that they had forged documents such as site
maps etc. to show that their project was genuine. The Court has also
noted the contents of the reply to the bail application, filed by the
Investigating Officer, which are as follows:-
"4. IO concerned filed reply stating that accused is one
of the partner in PLHC which had launched residential
plots township under the name 'Pragati Valley' at Karzat
in District Raigad near Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra. Large
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
publicity was done in the newspapers in Delhi based on
false facts to the effect that said township is government
approved. Accused Dattatray Mohite and Ashley
Concessio purchased the agricultural land in different
villages of Tehsil Karzat, District Raigad, Maharashtra
and induced people by claiming that they had collectively
acquired 300 acres of land in and around Karzat. PLHC
thereafter opened various bank accounts for collecting
money from investors. All the three partners including
accused were authorised signatories of the said accounts.
Huge amount were collected from investors based on said
representations. During investigation, it was found that no
government permission was obtained by PLHC or its
partners for developing said township. As per report of
Town Planner Department, no such permission was
granted to the accused to develop the said township.
Accused persons had fabricated the MAP documents with
dishonest intention for defrauding public at large. Besides
offence of cheating, accused had committed offences
punishable u/sec. 468/477 IPC. No land was found
registered in the name of PLHC or accused in question
during investigation. Though, accused has paid Rs. 1.24
crores to IFFCO group but co- complainants are yet to be
paid an amount of Rs. 5.41 crores. Coupled with the same,
accused was declared proclaimed offender one he stopped
appearing in the court, by the concerned court vide order
dated 08.05.2018. Accused is involved in various FIRs viz.
1. FIR No. 220/11, U/Sec. 420/406/468/471/120B IPC, PS-
EOW.
2. FIR No. 14/12, U/Sec. 420/406/468/471/120B IPC, PS-
EOW.
3. FIR No. 55/10, U/Sec. 420/406/467/468/471/34 IPC,
PS- Karjat.
4. FIR No. 56/10, U/Sec. 420/406/467/468/471/34 IPC,
PS- Karjat.
5. FIR No. 57/10, U/Sec. 420/406/467/468/471/34 IPC,
PS- Karjat.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
6. FIR No. 63/11, U/Sec. 420/406/467/468/471/34 IPC,
PS- Karjat.
7. FIR No. 388/14, U/Sec. 420/120B IPC, PS- Amar
Colony.
Hence, it was prayed that bail application must be
dismissed."
8. Mr. Kunal A. Cheema, the learned counsel for the applicant,
does not dispute the contents of the order of the CMM, and the
Sessions Court, so far as they relate to the conduct of the applicant in
not appearing before the Trial Court. However, he submits that this
was due to some miscommunication between the applicant and his
counsel. Mr. Cheema clarifies that until 2018, the applicant was, in
fact, present before the Trial Court on several occasions either
personally or through counsel. However, for the period between 2018
and 2021, Mr. Cheema accepts that the applicant did not remain
present before the Trial Court. He also submits that the applicant has,
in fact, refunded the entire payment of the principal amount received
by PLHC from the 114 complainants covered in the present FIR.
9. Mr. Avi Singh, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State, appears on advance notice, and disputes the contention of the
applicant in respect of payment of the principal amount made to the
complainants. In any event, he submits that there are many other
victims who were defrauded by the applicant alongwith his associates
with the same modus operandi and that the applicant is involved in
atleast seven other FIRs wherein the allegations are almost similar to
those in the present case. The application is further opposed on the
ground that the applicant deliberately evaded the process of law by not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
surrendering pursuant to expiry of the interim bail which was granted
to him for settling the matter with the complainants.
10. Mr. Cheema, however, submits that out of the seven other FIRs
which are pending against the applicant, three relate to the same
transactions as the present FIR, and have been closed by the concerned
court in Maharashtra. He further submits that the remaining three FIRs
are also related and a joint trial is in progress.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view
that the applicant is not entitled to bail in the present FIR. He,
undisputedly, failed to surrender in terms of the order of interim bail
granted to him on 27.05.2015. The applicant, in fact, remained out on
interim bail for a period of more than two years, and was declared as a
PO only on 08.05.2018. He was re-arrested in the present case on
17.09.2021 i.e. more than three years after he was declared as a PO.
Undoubtedly, it is because of this reason that the trial has also been
delayed by a considerable time. In these circumstances, the conduct of
the applicant does not support the contention that he is not a flight risk
and that he will be available, as and when required by the Trial Court.
12. The nature of allegations against him are also relevant in this
context. In this FIR alone, the allegations of cheating in respect of 114
home buyers have been made. The applicant is alleged to have cheated
hundreds of such innocent homebuyers who invested their money with
his project with the hope to have a house of their own. Suffice it to say
that the allegations levelled against the applicant are of serious
economic offences, in respect of which the Supreme Court in Y.S.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7
SCC 439 has cautioned as follows:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the matter
of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need
to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations."
13. In view of the forgoing discussion, I am of the view that it is not
appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. As a result,
the present application is dismissed.
14. It is made clear that any observation made in this order is only
for the purpose of disposal of the present application, and will not
prejudice the parties at the trial.
PRATEEK JALAN, J
APRIL 04, 2022
„pv‟
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed
Signing Date:06.04.2022
12:47:15
