BAIL APPLN./1237/2019 of K.S. SURESH Vs STATE & ANR.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+BAIL APPLN. 1237/2019

versus

STATE & ANR...... RespondentsThrough: Ms Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State.Mr P.D. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr AtulGupta, Advocate for R2/complainant.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

O R R%23.09.2019

1.The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying foranticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 89/2014 under Sections420/468/471/120-B/34 of the IPC registered at P.S. Mianwali Nagar.

2.The said FIR was registered at the instance of Sainik WelfareOrganization of India (hereafter ‘SWO’). SWO is non-governmentalorganization, inter alia, formed with the object to further the welfare ofretired defence personnel/their dependants. SWO states that it had collectedmoney from certain retired defence personnel and their dependants fordevelopment of residential accommodation for them. SWO had enteredinto Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.04.2010 with one SanjayNarain, Director of M/s Vakaratund Infrastructure Private Ltd. for the said

purpose. In terms of the said MOU, M/s Vakaratund Infrastucture Pvt. Ltd.had the responsibility to complete the housing project. Consideration for thesame was to be paid in instalments.

3.It is stated that Vakaratund Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. entered into aMemorandum of Understanding dated 27.12.2009 with HKD InternationalCompany (Mahesh Bulsaria and Hetal Bulsaria) for development of theproject. HKD International Company, in turn, entered into an agreementdated 27.12.2009 with the petitioner herein for procurement of land. It isstated that the project has not commenced and, in this background, SWOhad filed the FIR in question.

4.It is stated that applications for anticipatory bail were filed by the co-accused, namely, Mr Mahesh Bulsaria and Ms Hetal Bulsaria. The petitioneralso filed an application for anticipatory bail. While the proceedings werepending, SWO and the accused (K.S. Suresh, the petitioner herein, HetalBulsaria and Mahesh Bulsaria) were referred to the Mediation Centre, TisHazari Courts for an amicable resolution of their disputes.

5.It is stated that the said parties resolved their disputes before theMediation Centre and on 09.02.2015, entered into Settlement Agreement.In terms of the said agreement, the said accused agreed to repay sum of₹4,50,00,000/- to SWO/the investors. Although Hetal Bulsaria and Mahesh Bulsaria are stated to have partly paid the same amount, the petitioner hereinhas not paid any amount.

6.In view of the settlement arrived at between the parties in terms of theSettlement Agreement dated 09.02.2015, anticipatory bail was granted to theaccused by an order dated 10.03.2015. Since the said accused did notperform their obligations in terms of the settlement arrived at on 09.02.2015that is, defaulted in payment of the agreed amount in full, SWO filed anapplication seeking cancellation of the bail grated to the accused. The saidapplication was allowed and the bail granted to them was cancelled by anorder dated 05.11.2018 passed by the learned ASJ.

7.The other two accused, namely, Hetal Bulsaria and Mahesh Bulsariafiled their respective bail applications (Bail Application No. 2744/2018 &2748/2018) seeking anticipatory bail from this Court. Their applicationswere rejected by common order dated 11.01.2019. The said accused havepreferred Special Leave Petition against the said order (SLP (Crl.) 2414-2415/2019). And, by an order dated 15.03.2019, the Supreme Court hasissued notice and directed the stay of the arrest of the petitioners in the saidcase.

8.It is seen from the FIR that SWO had not entered into any directagreement with the petitioner in this present case. Its agreement was withM/s Vakaratund Infrasturcture Pvt. Ltd. which, in turn, had entered into anMOU with HKD International Company represented by Ms Hetal Bulsariaand Mr Mahesh Bulsaria. HKD International company had in turn enteredan agreement with K.S. Suresh, the petitioner in this case.

9.Since anticipatory bail was granted to the accused solely on the basis

of the Settlement Agreement entered into by them with the complainant, thesame has righty been cancelled. Nonetheless, their prayer is required to beconsidered on merits de hors the Settlement Agreement with SWO.

10.This Court is of the view that anticipatory bail cannot be denied to thepetitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner has failed and neglected toperform his obligation under the Settlement Agreement.

11.The petitioner claims that he had only received sum of ₹20 lakhs in terms of his MOU with HKD International Company. In view of the above,it does not appear that the role of the petitioner can be equated with that ofthe constituents of HKD International Company (Hetal Bulsaria and MaheshBulsaria).

12.There does not appear to be any tangible risk of the petitionerescaping the process of law.

13.Considering the above, this Court is of the view that the presentapplication ought to be allowed.

14.In view of the above, this application is allowed and the petitioner isdirected to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sumof ₹1,00,000/- and surety of the like amount. This is also subject to the following conditions: -

i)The petitioner shall join the investigation and report to

the Investigating Officer on 25.09.2019 at 10:30 a.m. andshall ensure that he is available to the IO as and whencalled upon;

ii) The petitioner shall cooperate with the police andprovide the IO all relevant documents including bankaccount documents, as are available in his possession, asand when required;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the National CapitalTerritory of Delhi without approval of the IO;

iv) The petitioner shall provide his contact details andensure that he is reachable at all times.

15.Needless to state that if any of the aforesaid conditions are violated,the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall be cancelled. In the event,a need arises, the IO is at liberty to apply.

16.The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

17.Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

SEPTEMBER 23, 2019pkv

VIBHU BAKHRU, J