news details |
|
|
| Accused of defrauding people, Royal Palms' owner, wife denied bail | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 1: Second additional sessions judge, Jammu, M K Sharma today rejected the pre-arrest bail of Amar Nath Choudhary and his wife Mohini Devi who are accused of tricking and defrauding people by not giving them possession of properties at Royal Palms here.
The petitioners have been booked by crime branch (CB) for commission of offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 120-B of RPC with the allegations that they and their son Radhey Shyam Chowdhary entered into a joint venture with M/s Ridhi Sidhi Infra Projects Pvt Ltd for construction of a multiplex on a piece of land owned by them.
As per the terms of agreement, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Infra Projects Pvt Ltd was to raise the project and the profit had to be shared by both the parties. The petitioners were under obligation to transfer the space in the multiplex by way of sale deeds in favour of investors. It is alleged that the petitioners, in order to cheat the investors and the partner, backtracked from discharging their obligation. On the basis of preliminary inquiry, CB registered a case against them. The petitioners have filed the petition under section 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking bail in anticipation of arrest.
The judge observed that on perusal of the case diary, it appeared that it was not a case of false implication nor it had been registered at the instance of some unscrupulous or irresponsible person.
"Moreover, anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule. It is to be granted only in special cases when some influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them. Some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of economic offences and that too, when investigation is in progress. In the instant case also, the investigation is in infancy and grant of bail in anticipation of arrest may hamper the investigation. The case involves hard earned money of dozens of investors for residential or commercial space in the multiplex and moreover, economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence, having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving a huge loss of public funds, needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing a serious threat to the country's financial health. On this ground also, court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to the protection of bail in anticipation of arrest in the aforesaid case," he said.
With these observations, the court rejected their bail applications. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
