New Delhi [India], May 16 (ANI): The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the bail plea of Ajay Kumar, the authorized signatory of Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. in a case of alleged fraud of more than Rs. 6 crores.
The case is connected with the sale of 26 flats to an investor in an unsanctioned project in Noida. The Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police had registered a case on the complaint of an investor.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed the bail plea moved on behalf of Ajay Kumar. Considering the nature of offence whereby not only the investors and home buyers stand duped but the economy of the entire sector gets affected leaving the registered buyers without any effective remedy.
"The possibility of the accused jumping the bail also cannot be ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no grounds for bail are made out, Justice Mendiratta observed in the order of May 13, 2022.
Justice Mendiratta observed in the order, "I have given thought to the contentions raised. The case of prosecution is that Tower G-1 in the above said project was never sanctioned by the Noida Authority and the accused persons in a criminal conspiracy had sold/allotted the 26 flats to the complainant in the said tower."
It may be further observed that petitioner is one of the authorized signatories in the bank accounts of Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. And is also one the shareholders and director in parent company Ultra Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is further stated to have signed the assured returns and principal amount cheques in favour of Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. It may be difficult to presume that the petitioner was unaware about the investment of Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. and allotment of 26 flats in Tower G-1, Silicon City despite the fact that the tower was never sanctioned by Noida Authority.
The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the FIR was registered against co-accused and CMD of M/s Amrapali Dream Valley Pvt. Ltd. and not against the petitioner. It was urged that in the forensic audit report, the role of the petitioner in Amrapali Group of companies has to be established.
The bail plea was opposed by the counsel for the State saying that there was misrepresentation with regard to the project to the complainant and payments were received despite the fact that no permission/approval/licence was granted to Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd.
The case of prosecution is that the FIR was registered on the complaint of Anubhav Jain against M/s Amrapali Silicon City Pvt. Ltd. and its directors/officials. Complainant alleged that in the month of November, 2011, the directors of the company approached him and represented that they shall hand over the vacant physical possession of 26 fully furnished flats in the project Amrapali Silicon City in Noida by September 2013. (ANI)