REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 242 OF 2019

Satinder Singh Bhasin        … Petitioner

Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.               … Respondents

O R D E R

1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the prayer for interim

reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d) of this writ petition.  In

terms of prayer   clause (c), the petitioner has prayed for grant of

bail in respect of FIRs mentioned therein registered at Police Station

Kasna,  Gautam Budh  Nagar,  Greater  Noida,  Uttar  Pradesh  and

Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at Parliament Street,

New Delhi  and all  other FIRs that  have been  lodged against  the

2

petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi

but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner and any other

FIRs that  come  to  the knowledge of this  Court  or the petitioner

during the pendency of the writ petition.  In terms of prayer clause

(d), the petitioner has sought relief of stay of proceedings emanating

from the concerned FIRs  mentioned therein registered at Police

Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh

and FIR registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and at

Parliament  Street,  New Delhi  and all  other  FIRs that  have  been

lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttar Pradesh and State

of NCT of Delhi but are not within the knowledge of the petitioner

and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Court or the

petitioner during the pendency of the writ petition.

2. The substantive relief claimed in the writ petition, by invoking

Article 32 of the Constitution of India for violation of fundamental

rights of the petitioner under Articles 14,  19(1)(d)  and 21 of the

Constitution of India, is to issue mandamus directing CBI to take

over investigation of all the FIRs registered against the petitioner in

the State of UP and the State of NCT of Delhi respectively in

3

connection  with the  project  by the  name  “Grand  Venice” in the

National Capital Region in particular Mall and a Commercial Tower

thereof and in respect of which by separate agreements, the

company of which the petitioner is the Director, had agreed to sell

units in the stated Mall and Commercial Tower as the case may be,

to the concerned party.  In the alternative, it is prayed that the FIRs

filed against the petitioner at different points of time in the State of

UP or the State of NCT of Delhi be consolidated and the

investigation be  entrusted  to  one agency so  that  criminal  action

against the petitioner can proceed at one place.   

3. As regards transfer of investigation of all the FIRs to the CBI,

in our opinion, the facts of the case do not warrant such a relief.

Similarly, the first part of the alternative relief claimed by the

petitioner to consolidate all FIRs, prima facie, in our opinion, do not

merit consideration.  However, the second part of  the alternative

relief may require deeper consideration in light of the submissions

made across the Bar by both the parties and the learned counsel for

the State of Uttar Pradesh and State of NCT of Delhi.  Prima facie,

4

the decision pressed into service to oppose even that relief in the

case of  Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr.   vs.   Union of India &

Ors.1 does not completely rule out the possibility of entrusting the

investigation of all the FIRs to one agency in one State by transfer of

FIRs and investigation thereof from one State to another State. That

appears to be a  debatable issue.  Our attention  has  also been

drawn to another three­Judge Bench decision in the  State of

Punjab & Anr. vs. Rajesh Syal2.  As aforesaid, the second part of

the alternative substantive prayer being a debatable issue, can be

considered at the appropriate stage.

4. Reverting to the interim relief claimed especially in terms of

prayer clause (c), the same reads, thus :­

“Grant bail to the Petitioner herein in FIR No.140/2019, FIR No.273/2019, FIR No.249/2019, FIR No.275/2019, FIR No.248/2019, FIR No.252/2019, FIR No.274/2019, FIR No.262/2019, FIR No.244/2019, FIR No.276/2019, FIR No.278/2019, FIR No.245/2019, 257/2019, FIR No. FIR No.313/2019, FIR No.309/2019, FIR No.258/2019, FIR No.251/2019, 272/2019 all at P.S. Kasna, Gautam Budh  Nagar,  Greater  Noida,  Uttar Pradesh; all other FIRs that have been lodged against the Petitioner but are not within the knowledge of the Petitioner and any other FIRs that come to the knowledge of this Hon’ble

1 (2002) 2 SCC 210 2 (2002) 8 SCC 158

5

Court or the Petitioner during the pendency of this Writ Petition; subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper irrespective of any order made or proceedings or applications pending in any of the courts other than this Hon’ble Court.”  

5. It is  noticed from  the  pleadings  and the  affidavits filed  on

record, that the petitioner’s application for grant of bail in respect of

17 FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,

Greater  Noida,  Uttar  Pradesh  have  already  been rejected  by the

concerned Court.  Those orders have not been assailed. But in the

writ petition, it is urged that instead of asking the petitioner to file

separate bail applications, this court in exercise of its writ

jurisdiction,  may entertain a  common prayer in that regard and

grant bail to the petitioner as recently granted in similar situation

by another Bench of this Court in  Surinder Singh  Alagh  vs.

Union of India & Ors.3.  

 6. It is noticed from the affidavit filed on behalf of the State of

Uttar Pradesh that in all the 17 cases where bail applications have

been rejected, and, in another case, where the bail application is

pending before the  concerned Court,  charge  sheets  have  already

3 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.196 of 2019 and connected matters (Order dated 02.08.2019)

6

been filed in the concerned Court.  It is also noticed that out of 37

cases registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,

Greater NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh, the petitioner has been granted bail

in 11 cases and eight cases are still under investigation.  Similarly,

five FIRs are registered in the State of NCT of Delhi­three at Police

Station Parliament Street and two with the Economic Offences

Wing, New Delhi. In those FIRs the petitioner has been granted bail

in three cases by the concerned Court.   

7. It is also noticed from the allegations in all the separate FIRs

filed before the concerned Police Stations that the same are virtually

similar if not identical or stereo type; and essentially making

grievance about the non­delivery of possession of the units to the

concerned complainant/allottee(s) including the assured lease

rental/assured returns in respect of the concerned units.  The other

common aspects in the separate FIRs is about the non­completion

of the project as assured and about siphoning of funds raised for

the completion of project in question.   The common allegation is

also about the legality or  impropriety  in allotment of  land to the

7

company by the officials of Uttar Pradesh State Industrial

Development Corporation (UPSIDC).  The latter allegation, however,

is common only in the FIRs registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

Notably, the investigation of FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna

has been entrusted to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted

by the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  To that  extent,  all the  37  FIRs

registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh are being investigated by

one agency and that agency has filed charge sheet(s) in almost 28

cases thus far.  

 8. We have also noticed that out of five cases registered in the

State of NCT of Delhi, with similar allegations, 72 out of 91

informants in the Kasna FIRs are also informants in the FIRs

registered with the Economic Offences Wing at Delhi. Indeed, the

common informants have offered explanation as to the

circumstances in which they became party/complainant in the FIRs

registered at Kasna Police Station.   For the time being,  it is  not

necessary for us to examine that controversy.  

8

9. It is also relevant to mention that bail granted by the Court of

competent jurisdiction at Delhi (CMM/ND/Patiala House Court) has

imposed onerous conditions  to be observed by  the petitioner,  as

noticed from the order dated 15th May, 2019.  It is a different matter

that the petitioner has not been able to avail of any of the bail and

is in custody since 12th February, 2019 because of the successive

FIRs registered at different places and custody warrants issued at

the instance of different police stations from time to time.

10. The  petitioner, on the  other  hand,  would contend that the

allegation that the project, in particular, Mall and Commercial

Tower in respect  of  which the stated  FIRs  have  been  registered

being incomplete, is  not correct.   For, the  UPSIDC  has  already

issued completion certificate on  16th  April, 2015  as  well as the

occupancy certificate on 3rd March, 2017 with retrospective date of

issuance of completion certificate in respect of the Mall and

Commercial Tower portion, i.e., the entire project except the hotel

portion.  The FIRs referred to in the writ petition in prayer clause (c)

are limited to the units in Mall and Commercial Tower of the project

9

in respect of which occupancy certificate has been obtained.   The

petitioner asserts that the petitioner has handed over possession to

77 allottees in the Mall and 245 allottees in the Commercial Tower.

The Mall and the Commercial Tower are fully functional and have

been  occupied  by the  brands  such  as  Cine  Appeals,  Big  Bazar,

Burger King, H&M etc. The case of the petitioner is that the

allottees who have  rushed to  register  FIRs are unwilling to take

possession of their unit(s) and are refusing to make payment of the

balance consideration amount.  In other words, the allottees are not

discharging their part of the contractual obligation.   Whereas, the

petitioner and the company are facing multiple proceedings

including  before  Company  Judge  [High Court/National  Company

Law Tribunal (NCLT)] and also before the concerned forum under

Consumer Protection Act for the same subject matter.  

11. It  is not necessary for us to examine the correctness of the

allegations made against the petitioner or the response filed by the

petitioner thereto.  Suffice it to observe that the project is situated

in the National Capital Region and within the territorial jurisdiction

of Kasna Police Station (State of Uttar Pradesh).  Majority of  the

10

cases are registered with the said police station and the concerned

police station is  inviting further complaints from similarly placed

aggrieved persons as a result of which new cases are being

registered and investigated by the U.P. State constituted SIT.   The

SIT of the State of Uttar Pradesh is investigating into a new angle

which had cropped up during the course of investigation, about the

possibility  of collusive  and collaborative  acts  of commission and

omission of the officials of the UPSIDC.   All this is being

investigated by the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh

which, in turn, has filed charge sheet(s) in as many as 28 FIRs thus

far.   

12. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to

grant interim relief claimed by the petitioner to release him on bail

directly by this Court in connection with all the FIRs mentioned in

prayer  clause (c) and other  FIRs that  have  been or likely to  be

registered against the petitioner in connection with the project,

namely, “Grand Venice”,  in particular, Mall and Commercial Tower

thereof, at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater

11

Noida, Uttar Pradesh or any other Police Station within the territory

of the State of Uttar Pradesh and, in the same manner, the FIRs

registered at the  Police  Stations  in the State  of  NCT of  Delhi  at

Police Station Parliament Street and by the Economic Offences

Wing New Delhi or otherwise.

13. As regards, interim relief  of  stay of  proceedings against  the

petitioner emanating from the FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (d),

that relief can be considered only in respect of FIRs registered in the

State of NCT of Delhi, be it with the Economic Offences Wing or

Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi.   The question of

granting stay of proceedings pending against the petitioner in

connection with the FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna,

Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh does not arise

as the  same are  being investigated  by  one investigating  agency,

namely, the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh.  In case

any FIR is already registered within the State of Uttar Pradesh in

Police Station other than Police Station Kasna, we have no manner

of doubt that the SIT will  take necessary steps to take over the

12

investigation of all such FIRs registered within the State of Uttar

Pradesh.  

14. Be it noted that we are inclined to stay further proceedings

only  arising from  the  FIRs registered  at  New Delhi  because the

substratum of the allegations in the FIRs filed at Delhi are similar

and, more so, as aforementioned, 72 complainants are common at

both the places.   We may, however, permit the remaining

informants/complainants in FIRs registered at New Delhi to register

their complaint with the Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar,

Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh if so advised, which can also be

investigated by the SIT constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

15. We are conscious of the fact that out of five cases registered

within the State of NCT of Delhi brought to the notice of this Court,

charge sheet has been filed in one of the FIRs.  However, until the

entire issue is debated and considered by this Court, to meet the

ends of justice, it would be expedient to stay the further

proceedings in connection  with all the  FIRs registered or to be

registered hereinafter in the State of NCT of Delhi.

13

16. In view of the  above,  we dispose of the  prayers  for interim

relief, in terms of the prayer clauses (c) and (d) of the writ petition

on the following basis :­

A. The petitioner is granted bail in respect of  all  the

FIRs referred to in  prayer clause (c) in respect of the

project by name “Grand Venice”  in NCR,  in particular,

Mall and Commercial Tower thereof, on the following

conditions: ­

(i) That the petitioner shall not commit any

offence of similar type of which he has been

accused.

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat, or promise to any

person acquainted with the facts of the case so as

to denude such person from disclosing such facts

to any Police Station or tamper with the evidence.

(iii) The petitioner shall join further

investigation as and when called upon to do so by

14

the Investigating Officer or by the SIT constituted

by the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(iv) The petitioner shall deposit his passport

with the Registry of this Court within a period of

two weeks  from today.   If it is  with the  Police

Station at Kasna or any Police Station in the

State of NCT of Delhi, the concerned Police

Station shall cause to deposit petitioner’s

passport in the Registry of this Court within the

same time.   

(v) The petitioner shall report to the

Investigating Officer nominated by SIT,

constituted by the State of Uttar Pradesh on

every Monday between 11 A.M. to 12 Noon and

shall also appear before the concerned Court as

and when called upon to do so.

(vi) The  petitioner shall  deposit an  aggregate

amount of Rs.50,00,00,000/­ (Rupees fifty crore

only) before the Registry of this Court as a pre­

condition for grant of bail.  On deposit of such

15

amount, authenticated copy of the receipt issued

by this Court  be produced before the concerned

Court/Investigating Officer.   The amount so

deposited by the petitioner in the  Registry, be

invested in an appropriate interest bearing

deposit scheme in a nationalized bank until

further orders including to renew the deposit

from time to time.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish personal bail

bond of Rs.5,00,000/­ (Rupees five lac only) with

one surety in the like amount in connection with

each FIR independently.

(viii) After being released on bail in terms of this

order, the  petitioner shall  make every possible

attempt to settle the claims of the concerned

complainant(s)/informant(s) as far as possible

within six to eight months as ordered by the

Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala

House Courts while granting bail to the petitioner

in FIR No.38/2018 registered with the Economic

16

Offences Wing, New Delhi vide order dated 15th

May, 2019.

(ix) If the petitioner fails to abide by any of the

above conditions intentionally and if it is so

established before this Court, no less than 50%

of the amount deposited by him in this Court in

terms of this order [Clause (vi) above] shall stand

forfeited.

(x) The petitioner shall extend full cooperation

to the concerned Court as and when necessary

for early disposal of the cases.

B. All further proceedings emanating from FIRs

registered at Police Station Parliament Street, New Delhi

or Economic Offence Wing, New Delhi or any other FIR

already lodged or to be lodged hereafter in State of NCT of

Delhi against the petitioner in connection with the project

named “Grand Venice”, in particular, units in Mall and

Commercial Tower thereof, shall remain stayed until

further orders.

17

17. Let the  writ  petition  be  notified for further  hearing  on 15th

January,  2020.  All concerned  shall file reply  affidavits/rejoinder

affidavits in the main writ petition, in the meantime if so advised.  

.……………………………,J. [A.M. Khanwilkar]

.……………………………,J. [Dinesh Maheshwari]

New Delhi; November 6, 2019.