VISHAL NAIDU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.108/2020 registered at Police Station -Somani, District -Rajnandgaon CG) for alleged commission of offences under Section 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

(2.) Prosecution story is that the complainant - Sandeep Uplanchiwar lodged report in the police station stating that he is one of the partners in one Jagdamba Infra Tech, Chandrapur, Maharashtra and he, along with other partners, purchased 20.987 hectares of land in village -Sakra in the name of other firm which was later on diverted for development of housing project in the name of Balaji Dream City. A business deal was struck on M/s. Active Growth, INC through its partners Ajit Nahar, Vishal Naidu and Vinay Gupta under which, an agreement was executed to the effect that the complainant firm shall be paid Rs.20 crores from M/s. Active Growth, INC for taking over project but as per the agreement, first installment of Rs.3 crores was not paid within one month but only Rs.70 lakhs was paid. Therefore, the agreement was canceled and the amount of Rs.70 lakhs was returned. Thereafter, another agreement for sale of 30 plots on commission of 15% was entered into between the parties. Thereafter, the accused entered into agreement with various purchasers and without filling necessary details, signatures of the complainant were obtained which was followed by sale of as many as 30 plots vide registered sale deed which was signed by the complainant on the assurance of the accused. However, thereafter, the entire sale consideration of 30 plots was not paid but only 70% of the sale consideration was paid and @ 15% commission, another 15% was dishonestly misappropriated. It was also alleged that even after sale of 30 plots, accused is entering into agreements, collecting money and falsely projecting himself as the owner of the project. According to the complainant, the applicant / accused prepared forged and fabricated agreement which were never executed by the complainant and on that basis, he had entered into various agreements with intending purchasers, collected huge amount and thereby committed offences alleged.

(3.) The bail application filed by the applicant was rejected by the Court below.