In the legal case Delhi High Court grants bail to Ex-Amrapali director Ajay Kumar
A bail application was submitted by the applicant, seeking relief from various FIR filed under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station EOW. The presiding judge, Amit Bansal, granted bail, directing the applicant’s release upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and providing one surety of a similar amount, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The FIR stemmed from complaints filed by homebuyers, alleging offenses of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust against entities such as Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited, and their directors, including the applicant. The accusations revolved around various residential projects in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. Homebuyers claimed that despite substantial payments, the projects faced delays, abandonment, or incomplete handovers. The accused were further accused of misrepresenting that all necessary permissions were obtained before accepting booking amounts.
An investigation revealed data from the Registrar of Companies (ROC) indicating that Amrapali Leisure Valley Pvt. Ltd. had last filed its audited balance sheet in the financial year 2014-2015. Subsequently, no financial records were filed. The balance sheet disclosed that out of the Rs. 1009 crores received from homebuyers, Rs. 503.58 crores were diverted as long-term loans and advances, and Rs. 65.81 crores as short-term loans and advances to group companies of Amrapali Group and others.
The court observed that the applicant, along with other accused persons, held authorized signatory positions in the bank accounts of the accused companies, indicating the applicant’s involvement in their financial affairs. According to the findings of the Forensic Auditor, significant amounts were diverted from the accused companies, amounting to Rs. 431.11 crores and Rs. 445.33 crores, collected from homebuyers, in the form of Inter Corporate Deposits (ICDs) to other companies within the Amrapali Group. The State’s Status Report revealed 59 pending cases against the applicant.
Notably, the applicant had been arrested on 23-06-2021 and had been in judicial custody since 09-10-2018 in other FIRs as of 10-02-2022, surpassing a period of five years in incarceration. Although the applicant held directorial positions in the accused companies and the holding company of the Amrapali Group, specific allegations regarding responsibility for financial matters, policy-making, or company administration were lacking. The Forensic Auditor’s report suggested the applicant’s involvement in “construction and coordination” activities, and a definitive role determination would only occur after the trial’s conclusion.
The court concluded that the evidence in the present case primarily consisted of documentary materials already in the prosecution’s custody, minimizing the risk of tampering if the applicant were released on bail. Considering the complainants were homebuyers, the likelihood of the applicant influencing or threatening witnesses was deemed low. The applicant had surrendered his passport, eliminating the risk of him leaving the country. Given the voluminous documents, numerous witnesses, and the anticipated lengthy trial duration.
The court deemed it unjust to keep the applicant under indefinite incarceration. Consequently, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, along with the period of the applicant’s past incarceration, the court inclined to grant bail, subject to specific conditions.
The conditions imposed for the grant of bail included:-
1. The person asking for bail must get permission from the Court before leaving the country.
2. The person must show up in the Trial Court whenever there’s a hearing about their case.
3. The person has to help with the investigation when the Investigating Officer asks.
4. The person must give their current phone number to the Investigating Officer and keep the phone on and working. They can’t turn it off or change the number without telling the Investigating Officer first.
5. The person must tell the Trial Court where they live, and if they move, they need to inform the Court and the Investigating Officer through a sworn statement (affidavit).
6. The person is not allowed to do anything illegal, and they can’t talk to or meet with anyone involved in the case against them. They also can’t mess with any evidence in the case.
Must Read:- MRP Raise 10% Yearly for Non-Scheduled Medicines Delhi High Court Say it’s Not Necessary