Delhi HC rejects bail plea of developer jailed for not completing projects in Gurugram, Manesar

The Delhi high court dismissed the bail plea of Sunil Kumar Dahiya, ex-director and promoter of Vigneshwara Developers Pvt Ltd and Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd,

The Delhi high court dismissed the bail plea of Sunil Kumar Dahiya, ex-director and promoter of Vigneshwara Developers Pvt Ltd and Vigneshwara Developwell Pvt Ltd, stating that there is a danger of “flight risk” if he is released on bail and there is the likelihood of him “absconding”.

HT Image

Justice Suresh Kait, while rejecting the bail plea of Dahiya — an accused in four cases registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Delhi Police for failure his to complete construction of projects in Gurugram and Manesar on account of financial constraints — said that the accused, being a rich and influential person, is also likely to tamper with the evidence.

It also noted that both Dahiya’s father and brother have been declared proclaimed offenders (PO).

“…there is a danger of flight risk, if the petitioner is released on bail, as his father and brother were declared proclaimed offenders and Section 174A of IPC was added against them. There is every likelihood of the petitioner (Dahiya) absconding, he, being a highly influential and rich person, also likely to tamper with the evidence once he is released on bail,” the court said in a judgment of December 14.

Dahiya was arrested by the police on October 30, 2014, and has not been released on bail since. Charges are yet to be framed in the four FIRs against him. The cases were registered against him on the complaints of associations of homebuyers.

Dahiya’s counsel, senior advocate N Hariharan, had contended that while construction of the Manesar project is at an advanced stage, construction in Gurugram could not commence since the zoning plan for the same was approved by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) only in August 2014, shortly before Dahiya was arrested in October 2014, when all operations came to a halt.

He had contended that after his clients’ efforts, a scheme was approved by the company court for settlement. He said that while the scheme was approved by 80% of the homebuyers, the associations have been opposing this.

However, the counsel for the complainants had said that the accused, in connivance with his accomplices, had allegedly hatched a fraudulent payment module and entered into sham agreements. They submitted that by way of those sham agreements, Dahiya parked the properties of the investors along with his accomplices, including his shell companies.

They also said that he entered into a lease agreement, sale agreement and buyback agreement (in his favour) on the same date, concerning the same bartered property with different persons, further displaying the value of the bartered properties lesser than the actual market value. The counsels also said that the accused failed to allot the units to homebuyers.

The complainants also said that while the project at Manesar is only 40-50% complete.

The court, in a judgment on December 14, said that Dahiya had no intention in implementing the settlement scheme reached with the homebuyers as he did not appear before the division bench in the Company Court. The judge also said that he had not deposited Rs 2.60 crore, as per the settlement order passed in January this year.

“Therefore, considering the conduct of the petitioner (Dahiya) of having the audacity to sell of the properties, while being behind the bars and under the custody of the authorities concerned, and properties were fraudulently bartered from the members of the complainants by showing them dream project which was nothing but a mirage. It is not unlikely that the petitioner would dispose of the unsold properties in a fraudulent manner upon being released on bail as in the past and leave the associations bereft of their rights to make good of the unsold properties,” the court said.