In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a landmark judgment has been delivered in the case involving the ‘Grand Venice’ project. The decision involves the consolidation of FIRs related to the project, granting of bail, and imposition of strict conditions on the accused. The order aims to ensure a fair and impartial investigation into the allegations raised by the complainants. Stay tuned for more updates on this high-profile legal battle.
Facts
- The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail in relation to FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street, New Delhi.
- Prayer for stay of proceedings stemming from the mentioned FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, along with any other FIRs that may surface during the case.
- The main relief sought is the issuance of a mandamus to direct CBI to take over the investigation of all FIRs against the petitioner related to the ‘Grand Venice’ project in the National Capital Region.
- Alternatively, consolidation of FIRs from UP and Delhi to be investigated by one agency for streamlined legal action against the petitioner.
Also Read: Balancing Justice: Case Summary of C.P. No. 16/2017
Analysis
- The Court is inclined to grant interim relief to release the petitioner on bail in connection with FIRs registered in various police stations in Uttar Pradesh and New Delhi.
- The investigation of FIRs in Uttar Pradesh is being handled by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) which has filed charge sheets in multiple cases.
- The petitioner’s bail applications in several cases have been rejected or are still pending, with charge sheets already filed in the concerned courts.
- The FIRs in both Uttar Pradesh and Delhi involve similar allegations of non-completion of projects and fund mismanagement.
- The Court does not find the transfer of investigation to the CBI warranted in this case.
- The petitioner has claimed that certain aspects of the FIRs, such as project completion and possession delivery, are not accurate.
- The majority of FIRs are registered at Kasna Police Station in Uttar Pradesh, with a pattern of similar complaints from allottees.
- The Court notes that the petitioner has been granted bail in some cases in Delhi as well as Uttar Pradesh.
- The petitioner seeks a consolidated bail relief for all the FIRs instead of separate applications.
- The Court considers the consolidation of FIRs and granting of bail as a debatable issue, requiring further consideration.
- Prima facie, the decision does not completely rule out the possibility of entrusting the investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State.
- The case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. is cited as a reference.
- The transfer of FIRs and investigation from one State to another State can be considered as a possibility.
- This transfer could be done to ensure a fair and impartial investigation.
- Further proceedings related to FIRs registered in New Delhi are stayed.
- The allegations in the FIRs from Delhi are similar.
- 72 complainants are common in both places.
Also Read: Judgment by Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. vs. Department of Central Excise
Decision
- The petitioner is granted bail in respect of all the FIRs related to the project named ‘Grand Venice’ in NCR.
- Several conditions are imposed on the petitioner for the bail to be effective.
- The petitioner must not commit any similar offenses, make inducements or threats, or tamper with evidence.
- The petitioner must cooperate with the Investigating Officer and the SIT as ordered by the Court.
- The amount deposited by the petitioner in the Registry shall be invested in an interest-bearing deposit scheme.
- Personal bail bonds and sureties are required in connection with each FIR independently.
- The petitioner must deposit his passport with the Registry within two weeks.
- Further proceedings in FIRs related to the ‘Grand Venice’ project in NCT of Delhi are stayed until further orders from the Court.
- The petitioner is expected to settle claims with complainants/informants within six to eight months.
- Failure to abide by the conditions may result in forfeiture of part of the amount deposited by the petitioner.
Also Read: Agarwal v. Family Court: Resolving Document Production Dispute
Case Title: SATINDER SINGH BHASIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No.-000242 / 2019
