Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36512 of 2019 Applicant :- Jitendra Taneja Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Akshat Sinha,Rajesh Kumar Sharma,Uday Prakash Sriwastawa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arun Kumar Singh,Rashtrapati Khare
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Akshat Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 71 of 2018, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, P.S. Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
It has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the alleged dispute is entirely of civil nature and no case is made out against the applicant. Due to slump in market and various other hindrances, the company of applicant could not complete said housing project in time and allegation made in FIR that no work has been done at site, is false and baseless as 85% work of construction has already been completed but project was delayed due to various difficulties. Sale agreement clearly provides for payment of compensation in case of delay caused by developer. It was submitted that in view of provisions contained in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 as well as RERA Act, the buyers of flats have remedy for breach of contract against builders and in fact the matter is already subjudiced before National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi and that interim Resolution Professional has been appointed and around 408 buyers have filed their claim before him and that Board of Directors has been dissolved. It was stated that in such circumstances, the buyers have remedy in accordance with said Act. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the company of applicant has invested a huge amount in said project and entire project is worth of about 184.82 crores and in such facts and circumstances, no case is made out against the applicant, whereas applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2019 and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that complainant and a number of other persons have booked flats in construction company of applicant and co-accused persons in year 2012-13- 14 on inducement of directors of the company that possession of flats would be delivered in 2015. Complainant has deposited 95 % sale amount but neither he was given possession of flat nor his amount was returned back and that the company has misappropriated amount of buyers and invested the same in some other projects. It was submitted that a number of persons have been cheated in similar manner in the tune of a huge amount. It was further submitted that allegations made against applicant and co-accused persons are serious and amount involved, is running into crores as, a number of buyers were cheated in similar manner. It was further submitted that once cognizable offence is made out against the applicant, criminal case has to proceed further in accordance with law and mere availability of alternate remedy for obtaining amount under above stated Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code would not vanish the criminal acts of applicant. It was further stated that applicant has criminal history of one case and that there are strong chances that if applicant is enlarged on bail, he may flee from justice or may temper evidence.
Perusal of record shows that there are allegations against the applicant and other directors of M/s J.N.C. Constructions Company builders that complainant as well as a number of other buyers have booked flats in project of said company in the year 2012-13 and complainant was even issued allotment letter in September 2014 but despite that the housing project has not been completed and complainant and other buyers have neither delivered possession of flats nor their amount was returned back. It was alleged that investors have paid about 95% of sale amount of flats and most of the buyers have paid this amount by securing housing loan. It was also alleged that at the time of booking flats, possession of flats was to be delivered by May 2015 but alleged company has misappropriated amount of buyers and has invested the same somewhere else. Considering the entire facts, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gravity of offence and amount involved as well as all attending facts and circumstances of case, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application of applicant Jitendra Taneja is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 A. Tripathi