Allowed

Divvya Nirula v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Nov 2024CRL.M.C./2859/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi quashed a bail order granted to a promoter accused of cheating investors in a bogus real estate project. Citing prima facie evidence of ₹125 crore misappropriation and the accused's disappearance, the Court held that continued judicial incarceration was justified and cancelled the previous bail to facilitate investigation.

What did the court decide?

The bail granted to Respondent No. 2 via order dated 12.01.2024 is cancelled and the police is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings.

Divvya Nirula Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Corruption | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 2859/2024 & CRL.M.A. 29658/2024 DIVVYA NIRULA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay S. Chhabra, Mr. Sugandh Virman, Advs.

¶4

versus

¶5

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH O R D E R % 13.11.2024

¶7

This is a petition under section 439(2) Cr.PC seeking setting aside of the Impugned order dated 12.01.2024 passed by Addl. Session Judge (SFTC) Dwarka Courts in Bail Application No. 234/2024 emanating from FIR No. 31/2021 registered at PS:EOW for offences under Sections 406/409/420/120B IPC whereby bail was granted to respondent No. 2.

¶8

As per the facts, the petitioner and similarly situated home buyers were induced by respondent No. 2 to invest in flats/units in a Group Housing Project launched by respondent No. 3.

¶9

Respondent no. 3, i.e. M/s Kamp Developers Pvt. Ltd, is a registered company engaged in real estate development wherein the respondent no. 2, Mr. Pradeep Sehrawat, is one of the original Promoters and Directors. The respondent no.2 represented that the respondent no. 3 owns 10 acres of agricultural land which will be pooled/exchanged under the “Land Pooling Policy” for construction of the Group Housing Project in the name of “Eden

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:04:42

¶11

Heights" and "Crystal Residency".

¶12

Since the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 failed to construct the real estate project and it transpired that the whole project was sham and bogus, the petitioner and other home buyers filed civil cases and complaints before RERA, Delhi (Real Estate Regulatory Authority). It is stated that all 56 complaints against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are pending with the EOW (Economic Offences Wing).

¶13

On 12.01.2024, the Sessions Court granted bail to the respondent No. 2 on the grounds that (i) investigation was conducted after a lapse of 3 years; (ii) the accused has already settled the matter with 11 complainants and is also ready to settle the matter with other complainants. The Court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satinder Kumar Antil v CBI in SLP (Crl) No. 5191 of 2021 dated 11.07.2021 to state that the respondent No. 2 should not be kept in continued in judicial incarceration before conclusion of trial.

¶14

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the respondent No. 2 did not have any approval from the DDA under the “Land Pooling Policy” and did not even have the requisite RERA clearances to construct either of the projects, namely "Eden Heights" or "Crystal Residency". In case of “Crystal Residency”, the respondent No. 2 did not even have the available land. The petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 has transferred the project land repeatedly to launch new Group Housing Projects to defraud additional homebuyers. The bail was granted without even notice to the complainant/petitioner, who had invested their hard earned money in the project of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and had a right to be heard before the grant of bail.

¶15

¶16

I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties.

¶17

The counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was served notice and appeared on 3 occasions, i.e. 24.04.2024, 11.07.2024 and 04.09.2024, and repeatedly sought time to file a reply.

¶18

No reply has been filed.

¶19

A status report dated 22.04.2022 has been handed over in court by Ms. Dalal, learned APP showing that the respondent No. 2 collected amounts, namely Rs.1,05,43,97,881/- and Rs. 24,13,57,453/- from various investors in two bank accounts belonging to respondent no. 3 and the balance in the respective accounts today is Rs. 6,906 and Rs.2,31,634/-.

¶20

Another status report dated 11.11.2024 has been handed over in Court today (in a connected matter bearing number Crl.MC. No. 5115/2024) showing that the respondent No. 2 is not available at the given address. 12. The address of the surety, namely Mr. Umesh Kumar, was House No. 78, Dwarka, Sector-23, Village Pochan Pur, Dhulsiras, New Delhi- 110077. 13. On visit to the surety, the surety stated that the respondent no. 2 is his nephew and he resides at H.No. 1-5, B-Block, Pochanpur Extn, Dwarka, Sec-23, Delhi. The verification at the said address showed that the father of the respondent no.2 resides at the same address and he denied having knowledge on the whereabouts of the respondent No. 2. The father stated that respondent No. 2 has been missing since 05.09.2024 and a missing complaint has been lodged on 13.09.2024. In view thereof, the State also requests that the bail granted to the respondent Nos. 2 be cancelled.

¶21

From the aforesaid facts, prima facie appears that the respondent No. 2 has prima-facie looted and defrauded at least 56 innocent investors and have misappropriated Rs.125 crores. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also did

¶22

¶23

not have any authorisation from DDA for Land Pooling Policy and the respondent No. 3 company is also not registered with RERA, which is a mandatory requirement.

¶24

Despite repeated opportunities, no reply has also been filed by either respondent Nos. 2 or 3. The status report dated 11.11.2024 also shows that respondent No. 2 is no longer available for investigation or to participate in the judicial process. Even today Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not present nor is anymore available to represent them.

¶25

Fort the said reasons, the petition is allowed and the bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 12.01.2024 is cancelled.

¶26

The police is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings. 18. The status reports handed over in Court are taken on record.

¶27

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶28

NOVEMBER 13, 2024/sp

¶29

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 09:04:42

Divvya Nirula v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divvya Nirula v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Islam Vs State and Ors.

Renu Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Umesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Sarla Beniwal & Ors. Vs the State Goverment of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Kamp Develepors Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Prashant Khanduri & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.