SUNIL GANDHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Surendra Kumar Hooda was arrested in the course of investigation in three cases viz. first information report (FIR) nos.114/2016, 116/2016 and 64/2016, now under investigation with Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police. His applications for release on bail have been declined by the court of Sessions. By the captioned petitions instituted by him, he seeks orders for release on bail from this court. The allegations in the three said FIRs also attribute role to petitioner Sunil Gandhi. He had applied for release on anticipatory bail but his requests in the context of three cases have been declined by the court of Sessions. By the three other captioned petitions, he seeks such orders from this court. Since the three cases against the two petitioners arise out of certain common set of facts, their contentions being similar, all the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.

(2.) M/S. A.N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 504, 5th Floor, Bhikaji Cama Bhawan, 11, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066. It has concededly been engaged in the business of real estate development. Petitioners Maj. (Retd.) Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi were concededly promoters and directors of the said company, they claiming to have resigned from the said positions in 2014-2015. Nonetheless, they have continued to control substantial share in the said company. On the basis of licences obtained by the company in 2010-2011, it had floated two projects, one called Spire Wood and the other called Spire Edge, each to be developed in different plots in district Gurugram (Haryana), the former for residential units and the latter to comprise of commercial or office space units. Pursuant to the publicity of the said projects made, a large number of public persons approached the company and made investments.

(3.) In the wake of delay in the completion of the said projects, and revelations statedly made of mis-representation vis-a-vis the prior approvals and the availability of lands free from all encumbrances, and certain acts of commission indulged in dishonestly resulting in siphoning of funds by the company and its directors, a large number of investors approached the police with their respective complaints, such grievances having, in turn, resulted in registration of the three cases viz. FIR no.114/2016 in police station Sarita Vihar under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), on the complaint of Shikha Sadh; FIR no.116/2016 also of police station Sarita Vihar for offences under Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC on the complaint of Renuka Kulkarni and FIR no.64/2016 of police station Economic Offences Wing (EOW) for offences under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B IPC. All the said three FIRs were eventually taken over for investigation by EOW.