Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd. Case: High Court Dismisses Bail Application

In the case involving Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd., the High Court has made a significant decision regarding the bail application. The court’s ruling sheds light on the ongoing legal proceedings related to the alleged fraudulent activities of the company’s directors. Stay informed about this developing case as details unfold.


  • Complainants were induced to invest in a housing project named ‘Big Bull Ashiana’ by the directors of M/s Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd.
  • The land shown to the complainants belonged to a different builder, and a project named ‘London Street’ was in progress by other builders on the same plot.
  • The accused directors did not apply for development permission from Jaipur Development Authority or any other government agency.
  • The land purchased by the accused in 2013 was misrepresented to investors, as it had been sold to other individuals.
  • Accused Yogesh Sharma executed sale deed of land not belonging to him and falsely advertised the project.
  • Co-accused Chetan Sharma was declared a Proclaimed Offender as he did not join the investigation.
  • Satyanarayan Sharma was arrested, while Yogesh Sharma surrendered and has been in judicial custody.
  • Bail applications of the accused have been repeatedly dismissed by different courts.
  • State argues that the accused misappropriated over Rs. 30 crores from about 31 victims.
  • The applicant had a significant role as a director and signatory in the accused company.
  • State asserts that the accused may influence prosecution witnesses if granted bail.
  • A detailed account of the FIR and investigation findings is presented, revealing systematic fraud by the accused.
  • The co-accused Yogesh Sharma was granted bail but failed to comply with the mediation settlement despite multiple opportunities.
  • Yogesh Sharma’s bail application was dismissed by the Court on 03.05.2023.
  • As a result, the interim bail granted to the applicant was canceled by the Trial Court on 10.01.2022.
  • The applicant was directed to surrender within two weeks following the cancellation of the interim bail.


  • The applicant had failed to abide by his undertaking and fulfill the terms of the mediated settlement agreement despite enjoying interim bail for over 02 years.
  • The applicant surrendered before the Trial Court only after about 08 months of his bail being cancelled.
  • The applicant is an active director and major shareholder of the accused company.
  • Chargesheet has been filed in the case, and charges are yet to be framed.
  • The contention that the applicant is willing to settle with the complainants is contradicted by his past actions.
  • Investors were misled into investing in a plot of land that did not belong to the accused, who also did not have permission for development.
  • It is evident that the accused had intentions to deceive the victims from the start.
  • The applicant is the authorized signatory of the bank account where funds were misappropriated.
  • A Mediated Settlement Agreement was reached with co-accused Yogesh Sharma, wherein he agreed to refund money received from victims.
  • The applicant, as an equal shareholder in the company, also undertook to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
  • The offence of cheating with multi-victim aspect is serious in nature.
  • The witnesses are yet to be examined before the Trial Court.
  • The applicant did not comply with the undertaking given before the Trial Court previously.
  • The applicant misused the interim bail granted to him for the said purpose by the Trial Court.
  • The Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage.
  • The bail application of the applicant is dismissed.
  • Pending applications are also disposed of.


  • The opinion expressed does not indicate a stance on the merits of the case.
  • This statement clarifies that the expression does not imply a judgment on the case itself.


Case Number: BAIL APPLN.-197/2024

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *