Neetu Singh vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1631 Del

                      $~30
                      *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                      %                                         Order pronounced on 20.05.2022
                      +        BAIL APPLN. 3805/2021
                               NEETU SINGH                                        ..... Petitioner
                                                  Through:      Mr. Nitya Ramakrishnan, Sr. Adv.
                                                                with Ms. Akriti Tyagi, Ms. Ekta
                                                                Sharma & Mr. Saaduzzaman, Advs.

                                                  versus

                               STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                               ..... Respondent

                                             Through:           Ms. Neelam Sharma, APP for the
                                                                State with SI Yad Ram, Ps EOW.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
                      Talwant Singh, J.:

1. The applicant has prayed for bail in case FIR No. 54/2016 under Sections 406/420/120B/174A of IPC dated 05.05.2016, PS EOW, New Delhi.

1.1 It has been submitted that the petitioner is 50 years old and has two children and she is in judicial custody since 07.12.2020. There are a total of 16 FIRs against the applicant on the similar allegations that M/s Value Infracon India Ltd., its sister concerns and the officials defrauded the investors by alluring them to invest in various real estate projects but the funds were diverted to other companies. The petitioner is stated to be already on bail on 3 of the 16 FIRs registered at Ghaziabad. 1.2 It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that allegation against her is that she was the director in the company and she was also an

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 authorised signatory in the bank accounts along with her husband. It is submitted that she was one of the directors in M/s Value Infracon India Ltd along with her husband, her brother-in-law and one Ashish Verma. Her directorship was only for a limited period between September 2013-August 2014.

1.3 The role attributed to the applicant is not greater than the roles of two other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail. The applicant was declared a proclaimed person on 30.10.2018, she was never given notice to participate in investigation, the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was executed at Ghaziabad at the residence of the petitioner which she had already vacated and the said property was seized and auctioned by the bank so the applicant was never aware about issuance of any such processes against her. Moreover, she was at Mumbai during the relevant time.

1.4 It has been also submitted that investigation is complete and the applicant is no longer required for questioning and the trial is not likely to commence soon, so she be released on bail as she has to look after her old mother and two children.

1.5 She is stated to be only a sleeping director and she has no direct role in day-to-day functioning of the companies; her bail applications were dismissed by learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and by the Sessions Court, so she has moved the present bail application; other co-accused namely Pramod Kumar Sharma and Ashish Verma, who were involved in the case, have already been granted bail and the petitioner is seeking parity with them. Moreover, there is not even an iota of evidence against the present petitioner to suggest that she had played any role in siphoning of the

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 funds.

2. Notice was issued. Status report has been filed twice. 2.1 As per the latest status report, it has been mentioned that the present FIR was registered on joint complaint of 10 complainants, who had invested in project 'Meadows Vistas' situated at Village Morta, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad (UP), promoted by M/s Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd., of which the present petitioner is one of the directors. Some flats were sold twice or thrice. During investigation, 20 complainants have come forward to lodge their complaint. The present applicant/petitioner is also a shareholder of M/s Niparth Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. to which funds were diverted from another companies and many other companies were promoted by the same set of directors with same purpose. The present petitioner was also a director and bank account authorised signatory in all the companies. The present petitioner along with her husband Pramod Kumar Singh and Sagar Mehta were declared as proclaimed persons on 30.10.2018 by the court of Ld. CMM, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts.

2.2 After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against M/s Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. and accused persons namely Pramod Kumar Singh, Sagar Mehta, Neetu Singh, Praveen Kumar Singh, Ashish Verma, M/s Niparth Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh under Sections 420/406/120-B IPC. Supplementary charge-sheet was also filed on 05.02.2021 adding Section 174 A IPC.

2.3 M/s Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. and its directors have taken the bookings of the units/flats in the residential complex and received the payment from complainants from 04.11.2011 to 28.11.2014 and allotted flats to them without having any right/authority to sell those flats and the

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 same flats were also sold to some other buyers. After collecting huge money, the alleged company/persons closed their booking offices and they vacated the premises which were on rent and the directors and their families went in hiding with a view to cheat the public including present complainants.

2.4 The petitioner had played an active role in cheating and day-to-day affairs of the company. She was also a promoter and shareholder of the company during the relevant period of cheating, apart from authorised signatory in bank accounts of the company and she was having an active role in day-to-day affairs of the company. She has hatched criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons, she has showed to the complainants that the company was financially sound and the project was in progress and the possession of flats would be given within 36 months. The funds of the investors deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. were siphoned off to other bank accounts/companies. 2.5 During investigation it was noticed that on 06.06.2016, after closing their office/addresses, accused/applicant Neetu Singh and her husband Pramod Kumar Singh left the country and she came back to India only on 09.07.2016 and started residing in Mumbai by hiding herself. The stand of the petitioner is that after 2016, she is not in touch with her husband Pramod Kumar Singh, who is a proclaimed offender but it has come to notice that on 27.04.2018 she had filed a counter affidavit on behalf of her husband Pramod Kumar Singh in Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Crl.) No. 1674/2016 titled Atul Chhabra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in case FIR No. 451/2015, under Section 420/467/468/471/406/34 IPC registered with PS Phase-3 NOIDA. The petitioner is involved in many cases where

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 different investors had paid huge amounts and booked the flats, which were never delivered to them.

2.6 There are 46 victims in FIR No. 67/2016 U/s 420/406/120B/174A IPC PS EOW and 75 victims in FIR No. 192/2016 U/s 420/406/120B/174A IPC PS EOW and rest of the cases are single victim cases. Bail has been opposed on the ground that she did not cooperate in investigation and she did not disclose the present whereabouts of her husband Pramod Kumar Singh; she may influence or threaten the witnesses; she in connivance with her husband, duped the general public at large and siphoned/misappropriated their hard earned money; she is one of the main accused or director of the accused company; she was declared proclaimed person and she may jump the bail if granted; she is not having any permanent address so her presence cannot be assured during trial. Further money trail is under investigation apart from the investigation regarding the absconders.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, who also filed the written submissions on record.

3.1 Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds taken in the bail application. It has been submitted that there was an attempt to serve the notice under Section 82 Cr.P.C. at Ghaziabad address of the petitioner, where she was not residing as the flat was sold off by the bank. Her husband left her in lurch in 2016; due to financial distress she went for four weeks training in Group Hotel in 2017 in Varansi and thereafter she started working in Goa and she was later employed in Bombay. Other co-accused have been already granted bail; the mother of the petitioner is about 80 years old, her daughter is employed in Mumbai and there is a school going son also. She being a house wife, had no knowledge about the financial affairs of

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 the company.

3.2 On behalf of the State it has been reiterated that there are many FIRs against the present petitioner. There was clear intention to cheat large number of depositors. The petitioner along with husband left the country on 06.06.2016 and she came back only on 09.07.2016 but her husband did not accompany her; she has been a shareholder or director in all the companies under scrutiny and she has actively induced the complainants/investors to purchase flats in the project and those flats were already sold of twice or thrice.

4. After hearing the parties and after going through the record, in my view, the present petitioner is not entitled to bail as immediately after collecting the money from the investors and siphoning of the same by transferring the money collected in the account of M/s Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd. to bank accounts of other companies, the petitioner and her husband closed down the offices of the company and went abroad in June, 2016 and strangely only the petitioner came back and her husband is absconding since then; no money has been refunded to the complainants by the present petitioner till date. After coming back to India, the petitioner did not surrender before the police authorities, rather she went away to Goa and thereafter to Mumbai with a view to hide herself from the law enforcement agencies who were actively searching for her and the said search ultimately resulted in declaring the present person as a proclaimed person under Section 82 Cr.P.C. by the learned Trial Court. The consistent stand of the petitioner is that she was not knowing the whereabouts of her husband since 2016 but in 2018 she had represented her husband and sworn an affidavit in support of counter affidavit filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45 Charge-sheet stands filed followed by supplementary charge-sheet but the evidence is yet to be recorded and if the present petitioner is released on bail, the possibility of influencing the complainants and other witnesses cannot be ruled out. The said witnesses are yet to depose before the concerned Trial Court. As the petitioner had left the country earlier on 06.06.2016 after collecting the huge amounts from the investors complainants, the possibility of her again fleeing from the country cannot be ruled out.

5. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to regular bail at this stage and her application for regular bail is hereby dismissed.

TALWANT SINGH, J MAY 20, 2022/nk

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Signature Not Verified

Signing Date:26.05.2022 16:07:45