New Delhi – In a significant judicial proceeding, the bail application of Satyanarayan Sharma, a director of M/s Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd., has been dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The case, bearing FIR No. 142/2018, registered at Police Station EOW, Delhi, involves allegations of cheating and economic offences under Sections 420, 409, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Background
The FIR was lodged following a complaint by Sandeep Anand and other investors who had purchased plots in 2013 from M/s Big Bull Infrastructure Ltd. The complainants were promised possession within 20 months, as per the pre-allotment letter for the “Big Bull Ashiana” project at Chandwaji, NH-8, Jaipur, Rajasthan. However, the accused, including Satyanarayan Sharma and his co-directors, failed to deliver the plots, neither developing the area nor refunding the invested money.
Investigations revealed that the accused did not have the required permissions for the project and that the land in question belonged to another builder. The accused allegedly misrepresented facts to investors, leading to financial losses for multiple victims.
Judicial Proceedings
Satyanarayan Sharma, through his counsel Mr. Lalit Kumar, argued for regular bail, highlighting that he had been on interim bail for over two years without misuse and was willing to comply with any conditions set by the court. His counsel pointed out discrepancies in the FIR and emphasized Sharma’s limited 33% share in the company.
Mr. Amol Sinha, representing the State, opposed the bail, stressing the seriousness of the economic offences and the applicant’s significant role in the fraudulent activities. He argued that Sharma, along with his co-directors, had defrauded numerous investors and misappropriated funds, amounting to over Rs. 2.30 crores.
Court’s Decision
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, noted the multi-victim nature of the offence and the applicant’s active involvement as a director and major shareholder. The court observed that despite earlier undertakings and interim bail, Sharma failed to abide by the mediated settlement agreements and court orders.
Given the gravity of the offence and the potential influence on prosecution witnesses, the court denied the bail application. The judge emphasized the need for continued judicial custody, given the applicant’s previous non-compliance and the ongoing investigation.
Conclusion
The dismissal of Satyanarayan Sharma’s bail application underscores the judiciary’s stance on serious economic offences involving multiple victims. The case continues to unfold as authorities proceed with further investigations and court proceedings.
The full judgment has been uploaded on the official court website.
