BAIL APPLN./1443/2015 of MADHU SINGH Vs STATE ( NCT OF DELHI)

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+BAILAPPLN.1443/2015

MADHU SINGH

STATE(GOVTOFNCT OFDELHI).... Respondent

CORAM;

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

ORDER15.10.2015

The present application has been filed by the applicant under

Section 439 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the grant of

Signature Not Verified

regularbail in FIRNo.48/2012under Sections406, 420 and 120-BPolice StationEconomicOffencesWing,MandirMarg New Delhi.Argumentsadvancedbythe learnedcounselfor the applicant'as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State havebeen heard.

Theallegationslevelledagainstthe applicantarethat she wasthe Chief Managing Director of AJS Builders Pvt. Ltd.Thecompany of the applicant is engaged in the business of landdevelopment and real estate. The complainant was introduced tothe applicant/accused. On the assurance of the accused persons, thecomplainant invested the money towards booking of flat.Lateron, it was revealed that the accused persons had no land to developany project. It is further alleged that neither the flat was allotted tothe complainant nor the money was returned.On the basis ofcomplaintmade by the complainant,FIR of the present case wasregistered.

During investigation, it was revealed that total sum ofRs.50,42,89,799/- was collectedby the company of the accusedfrom the general public. Several companieswere floated by the

and other co-accusedfor diversionof funds which wasapplicantcollected from the investors on the pretext of bookings.

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that severalcomplaintswere made againstthe applicantand many of them havebeen settled. It is further argued that sum of Rs.9 crores hasalreadybeen depositedby the applicant. The applicantwas arrestedin the present FIR on 08.07.2014 and in other 15 FIRs on08.07.2014 and was sent to judicial custody on 16.07.2014. Theapplicant is suffering incarceration since 16.07.2014. The chargesheet has already been filed and no recovery or inquiry has beensought by the investigating officer. The applicant has disbursedmore than Rs.20 crores to various investors.It is further arguedthat once after declaring her as the ProclaimedOffender, theaccused has been re-arrestedso the declarationof the accusedasProclaimed Offender does not have any bearing on the conduct ofthe accused.

It is submittedthat the applicant/accusedwasdeclaredProclaimedOffender on 06.10.2010and thereaftershe was arrestedon 07.06.2011.She was granted bail on 31.05.2012.Thereafter,

due to non-appearanceof the applicant/accused,NBW was issuedagainsther on 19.11.2012and she was again declaredProclaimedOffender on 06.06.2014. Thereafter, she was again arrested.

The conduct of the applicant shows that the applicant isavoidingthe Court as earlier she was declaredProclaimedOffenderand then she was arrested. Admittedly, the applicant was declaredproclaimed offender twice which reflects the conduct of theapplicant and clearly shows that she has been escaping the clutchesof the law by fleeing away as she was already declared ProclaimedOffender twice. The FIR was registered in 2012 and thereafter, theaccused absented herself from the Court in pursuance of NBW.Ithas been argued by the learned APP that after the grant of bail bythe Trial Court the accusedwas made availableafter issuance ofNBW and she was arrested after declaring her as ProclaimedOffender. Apparently, apart from the main case, two prosecutionsunder Section 174A are already pending against the accused. Thus,there is likelihood of theaccused not being available forprosecution in case she is released on bail as she owescrores ofrupees to the people alleged to be cheated by her.In such

scenario, the conduct of the applicant does not make her entitle for

the grant of bail.

Application is accordingly dismissed.

ISP.^TEII,J

OCTOBER 15, 2015