Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Friday, last week granted bail to Amrapali Group’s former Chief Managing Director Anil Kumar Sharma in a case related to alleged cheating with home buyers in his projects.

Justice Vikas Mahajan said, “The allegations against the petitioner may be serious but they do not warrant the invocation of an exception carved in the first proviso to Section 436A CrPC, to continue the detention of the petitioner for a period longer than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for Section 420 IPC, when notably it is not a case of the prosecution that the petitioner has in any way been responsible for the delay of trial”.

The matter pertains to an FIR that was registered on a complaint by one Anubhav Jain, who bought 26 flats in Tower G-1 of petitioner’s company's project “Amrapali Silicon City” proposed to be developed at Plot No. GH-1A, Sector-76, Noida.

During the investigation, it was found that Tower G-1 in the aforesaid project was never sanctioned by the Noida Authority and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the petitioner(Anil Kumar Sharma) sold/allotted 26 flats to the complainant in the said tower and being induced by the accused persons, the complainant agreed to invest in the said project and made a full and final payment of Rs. 6.60 crores against the said flats in November 2011.

Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey, on behalf of Sharma, submitted that the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 420 IPC with which he had been charged was 7 years whereas the petitioner had been in custody for more than 3 years and 6 months. The senior counsel also submitted that in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 436A CrPC, Sharma was entitled to statutory bail after having undergone detention for more than one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

He further submitted that the prosecution had cited as many as 50 witnesses and the conclusion of trial was likely to take long time.

On the contrary, the Additional Public Prosecutor Richa Dhawan, on behalf of the Delhi Police contended that it was a “multi-victim scam”, therefore, the benefit of Section 436A should not be extended to the petitioner in view of the first proviso to Section 436A CrPC. She urged for the dismissal of the petitioner’s bail application.

Taking note of the submissions, the judge said, "Undisputedly, the petitioner in the present case has undergone detention for a period in excess of one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

On perusal of the chargesheet, the court said that as many as 50 witnesses had been cited by the prosecution, and evidently, it was going to be a “protracted trial”. “Therefore, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody”, it said.

The court noted that the chargesheet in the case filed by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police booked Sharma under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 120B of IPC, but charges were not framed under Sections 420 and 120B.

The single-judge bench held that the petitioner had made out a case of grant of regular bail. “Accordingly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a Personal Bond in the sum of Rs.1 lac and two Surety Bonds of the like amount subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM/Duty Magistrate”, the court ordered.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)