2022 (12) TMI 1535 - HC - Indian Laws

Regular bail denied in Rs. 12 crore misappropriation case affecting 122 victims through dissolved company scheme

Mukesh Kumar Singh Versus The State

Delhi HC dismissed regular bail application in economic offences case involving misappropriation of Rs. 12 crores from 122 victims, mostly retired ... Seeking grant of regular bail - Economic offences - misappropriation of funds - HELD THAT:- In the present case, charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet have been filed, and since there are around 122 victims, the trail of money is being traced qua many complaints. The present case is one of those cases where the hard earned money of senior retired Govt. Servants and other people belonging to economically poor section of society was taken on false pretext by misrepresentation and the same was also misused, misdirected and misappropriated for the own purpose and benefit of the present accused/applicant. The allegations as per the charge-sheet are that he had misused the amount so collected from the innocent victims to his own use by purchasing car and flats. More so, it is also the case of prosecution that the name of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd had been struck off and the company was dissolved on 07.06.2017 by Registrar of Companies - The bank account statement of the present applicant also reveals that huge amount of cash was withdrawn from his bank accounts. The present applicant is also involved in another FIR bearing no. 107/2017, Police Station Dwarka North, for the offences punishable under Sections 186/353/34 IPC, which is pending trial. The applicant has, thus, misappropriated the hard earned money of 122 innocent victims to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. The bank account statement of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd reveals that out of Rs. 16.28 crores, only Rs. 4.31 crores was paid to the farmers/landowners for the purchase of land and about Rs. 12 crores have been misappropriated by the present accused/applicant. The fact make it clear that present case falls under the category of economic offences causing loss of hard earned money of innocent victims. The investigation qua many complaints against the present applicant is under way. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to grant bail to applicant at this stage - bail application dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Allegations of misappropriation of funds by the applicant.3. Role of the applicant in the formation and functioning of the Society.4. Conflict between the main chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheet.5. Consideration of principles governing the grant of bail.6. Specific considerations for economic offences in bail applications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Regular Bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:The applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in relation to FIR No. 55/2020 registered at the Economic Offence Wing for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 423, 411, and 120B of the IPC. The court examined the application within the framework of judicial discretion and principles governing bail.2. Allegations of Misappropriation of Funds by the Applicant:The allegations included misappropriation of approximately Rs. 12 crores out of Rs. 16.28 crores received from the Society. The applicant, as Director of M/s Khushi Properties and Developers Pvt. Ltd., was accused of misusing funds meant for land purchase, with only 1.9 acres bought for Rs. 7 crores. The court noted that the applicant continued transactions even after the company was struck off by the Registrar of Companies, indicating potential fraudulent activity.3. Role of the Applicant in the Formation and Functioning of the Society:The defense argued that the applicant had no role in the formation of the Society or in the inducement of members. The governing body of the Society was responsible for fund collection and representation. However, the court found that the applicant had entered into MoUs with the Society and continued transactions post-dissolution of his company, indicating deeper involvement.4. Conflict Between the Main Chargesheet and the Supplementary Chargesheet:The defense highlighted discrepancies between the main and supplementary chargesheets. The main chargesheet implicated the applicant and his company, while the supplementary chargesheet named other co-accused without linking them to the applicant. The court considered these conflicts but focused on the evidence of misappropriation and the applicant's actions.5. Consideration of Principles Governing the Grant of Bail:The court referred to several precedents, emphasizing the need to consider the nature and seriousness of the offence, character of evidence, potential for tampering with evidence, and public interest. The principles from cases such as *Runu Ghosh v. State (CBI)* and *P v. State of Madhya Pradesh* were reiterated, underscoring that bail should not be withheld as punishment but must ensure a fair trial.6. Specific Considerations for Economic Offences in Bail Applications:The court acknowledged that economic offences require a different approach due to their impact on public funds and the economy. Citing *Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI* and *P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement*, the court noted the gravity of economic offences and the need for careful consideration of bail applications in such cases. The applicant's misappropriation of funds from senior retired government servants and economically poor individuals was deemed a serious offence.Conclusion:The court concluded that the applicant's actions constituted a severe economic offence, involving misappropriation of substantial funds from vulnerable individuals. Given the ongoing investigation, the seriousness of the allegations, and the potential for further tampering with evidence, the court denied the bail application. The decision was guided by established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the observations made would not affect the trial's merits. The bail application was dismissed, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and the protection of public interest.