Housing project fraud accused denied bail despite 4-year custody as fund diversion affected 450+ victims

Delhi HC denied regular bail to accused in housing project fraud case involving illegal diversion of funds. Over 450 victims awaited possession of housing units promised for delivery between 2014-2016. Despite partial project completion, accused actively participated in fund diversion with full knowledge. Court held economic offences require different bail approach, citing grave allegations of fund siphoning and risk of accused absconding. Mere custody since 2019 and delayed trial insufficient grounds for bail considering evidence and victimized home buyers.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR involving Sections 406/420/120B IPC against M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. for alleged diversion of funds and non-completion of housing projects.

Analysis:
The prosecution's case involves more than 450 victims who booked housing units in group housing projects developed by M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. The projects were not completed as per schedule, leading to complaints from multiple victims. The accused company was alleged to have diverted funds collected from buyers, resulting in incomplete projects despite approvals and partial construction.

The petitioner, one of the directors of the holding company, claimed limited involvement in day-to-day management and construction activities. The defense argued lack of fraudulent intent in project delays, citing completion percentages in other projects. Additionally, assets of the company and directors were attached following a forensic audit ordered by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's role as an authorized signatory and director during specific periods was emphasized.

The State opposed the bail application, alleging unauthorized diversion of funds amounting to Rs. 563 Crores, leading to project delays since 2016. The prosecution highlighted the forensic audit report and cited relevant case laws to support the seriousness of economic offenses. The court considered the delay in project completion, fund diversion, and the impact on innocent buyers awaiting possession.

After evaluating the contentions, the court noted the significant number of victims awaiting possession and the illegal diversion of funds leading to project abandonment. The petitioner's active role during the fund diversion period was highlighted, indicating knowledge and responsibility. The court emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses and the impact on public funds, leading to a different approach in bail matters.

Considering the grave allegations, evidence of fund diversion, and potential risk of bail jumping, the court dismissed the bail application. The judgment emphasized the seriousness of economic offenses affecting public trust and financial stability, warranting a cautious approach in granting bail.

The judgment does not express an opinion on the case's merits but focuses on the gravity of the allegations, impact on innocent buyers, and the need to prevent economic offenses.

---