DEVENDER KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Devendra Kumar Aggarwal is claiming his release from jail on bail by filing four separate applications in respect of four criminal cases of cheating etc. arising out of four FIRs registered against M/s Lakshmi Vatika Ltd. ('LVL' in short), of which he is the Chairman -cum Managing Director, and its other Directors. Since all the four cases came to registered under similar circumstances at the instance of different duped persons and these four bail applications involve common facts and were heard also analogously the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE aforesaid Company LVL and its Directors, including the petitioner, are being prosecuted for having duped thousands of persons who were dreaming of owning residential plots in different cities of crores of rupees. As per the complaint (in BA No. 51/10) of a large group of people who had paid money to LVL through its Directors the accused had collected over fifty crores of rupees towards registration/advance money by promising the people plots of various sizes in the city of Dehradun. It was allegedly represented to the public at large that LVL owned about 100 acres of land in Dehradun for developing there a dream project by the name of 'Drona City' but later on it transpired, when LVL had already collected crores of rupees, that this Company did not own even an inch of land there and even the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony was stage -managed and organized at a site in Dehradun which did not belong to the Company though the public persons who had been induced to enter into contracts of sale of plots and were escorted to that site in its own transport were represented that that site belonged to LVL. Similarly LVL through its Directors including the petitioner herein entered into sale agreements with various people for sale of plots in Mumbai, Mohali and Patna in respect of which transaction three FIRs were registered, when, in fact, the Company had no land there also. Various complaints came to be lodged with the EOW Cell of Delhi Police since LVL and its Directors/Managers etc. were based and have been operating from Delhi.

(3.) ON behalf of the petitioner - accused learned senior counsel Mr. Rakesh Khanna advanced arguments in support of these applications for release of the petitioner - accused on bail. From the submissions made by Mr. Khanna it appeared that it was not being disputed that LVL had obtained crores of rupees from public at large while promising them allotment of plots of land of various sizes in different cities. However, the main reason for not fulfilling the promises and assurances by the said Company and its Directors etc., as could be made out from the submissions of the learned senior counsel, appears to be 'global recession'. Because of the recession in the real estate market most of the investors had allegedly decided to cancel the agreements and had opted to ask for refund of the money paid by them and since there was exodus of such category of investors the Company became helpless in going ahead with its various projects of development of lands and consequently the investors approached the police and the police, in turn, as per the petitioner's case had converted disputes of civil nature into criminal cases in order to pressurize the Directors of LVL to return the money to the investors which was not possible in one go since the money so obtained from the investors stood invested in the Company's projects. Mr. Khanna had contended that LVL has already floated a scheme for settlement of the claims of thousands of its investors and necessary petition under Sections 391/392 of the Companies Act was pending in this Court and most likely the scheme which was approved by most of the investors during the investors' meeting convened pursuant to the orders of the Company Bench of this Court would get approval of the Company Court also. Therefore, Mr. Khanna contended, there were no mala fide intentions of the petitioner and no case is, prima facie, made out for the offence of cheating etc. in respect of which the investigating agency has already filed charge -sheets mechanically without considering the factual aspects. It was further contended by learned senior counsel that the petitioner and his Company has already settled with many investors and for settling the claims of remaining lot he could even be released on interim bail. In the end it was also argued that the petitioner in any event deserves to be released on bail, even if the allegations of cheating etc. are considered to be, prima facie, having some force in view of the fact that he has now already remained in jail for over 16 months and under no circumstances he can kept in jail for indefinite period. In support of the submissions that in order to have the matter compromised with the various investors the petitioner should be granted at least interim bail and regular bail because of his being in jail for over a year Mr. Khanna cited some bail orders passed by this Court in different cases where the accused persons of those cases under similar circumstances, as exist in the present case, were granted interim bail and in some cases regular bail.