High Court of Delhi

Ajay Kumar vs. State Nct Of Delhi

MANU/DE/7707/2023

17.11.2023

Criminal

Reference to precise role in commission of offence is necessary to attach criminal liability

By way of the present bail applications, the applicant seeks regular bail for FIR’s registered under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The FIRs were registered on the complaints of homebuyers, who have alleged that Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited (the accused companies), and their directors/officials, including the applicant, have committed offences of cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust in respect of various residential projects in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

It is alleged that despite payment of majority of the consideration amount by most of the homebuyers, the projects were either stalled/abandoned or the possession of flats was given in a highly delayed and incomplete manner. It is further alleged that the accused persons had misrepresented the fact that all the requisite permissions/sanctions were obtained from the concerned authorities, prior to accepting the booking amount from the homebuyers.

Even though the applicant was one of the directors in the accused companies as well as the holding company of the Amrapali Group of Companies, there are no specific allegations against the applicant being responsible for the financial matters, policy-making or the administration of the company. As per the Report of the Forensic Auditor appointed by the Supreme Court, it appears that the applicant was involved in the "construction and coordination" activities of the company. The exact role of the applicant shall be determined only after the conclusion of the trial.

In Ashok Sikka v. State, it has been held by this Court that a mere statement that the petitioners were directors of the company at the time of commission of offence, without reference to their precise role, would not be sufficient to attach criminal liability to them.

The Chargesheets have been filed in all of the FIRs and the entire evidence is documentary in nature. It is also to be noted that the charges are yet to be framed in any of the FIRs and the trial is likely to take a long period of time, taking into account the voluminous documents and the large number of witnesses to be examined.

The conduct of the applicant in jail has been satisfactory. He was granted interim bail for a period of two months on medical ground on 31st October, 2020 and he had duly surrendered back on time. The applicant has also surrendered his passport.It is a settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. The right to speedy trial and justice has been recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court.

In the present case, the evidence is primarily documentary in nature and already within the custody of the prosecution therefore there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence if released on bail. Also considering that the complainants are homebuyers, there is little possibility of applicant influencing or threatening the witnesses. The applicant has already deposited his passport, hence there is no possibility of him leaving the country.

Taking into account the voluminous documents, the number of witnesses and that the trial is likely to take a long time, the applicant cannot be kept under incarceration for an indefinite period of time. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and the period of incarceration already suffered by the applicant, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The applicant is directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court and further subject to the following conditions. Applications allowed.

Tags : Bail Grant Conditions

Share :