SC Rejects Bail Plea Of Real-Estate Ex-Promoter Surendra Kumar Hooda

The Supreme Court has recently rejected the bail plea of a former promoters Surendra Kumar Hooda of the real estate company for allegedly cheating investors and asked them to surrender.

On October 4, a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi dismissed the plea of Surendra Kumar Hooda, ex-promoters and directors of real estate company AN Buidwell.

The court heard the plea filed by Surendra Kumar Hooda and Sunil Gandhi challenging the order of the Delhi High Court refusing the bail plea. Hooda has sought regular bail while Gandhi moved for the anticipatory bail plea.

The court stated, “In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to continue the protection of the petitioners. The scheme was sanctioned under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The attempt on the part of the promoters to stall the criminal proceedings through the scheme was not approved by the High Court. We find no error in the impugned orders passed by the High Court rejecting the pleas for Bail and Anticipatory Bail made by the petitioners.”

The court directed Surendra Kumar Hooda to surrender within 8 weeks.

The court stated, “So far as the other petitioner (Sunil Gandhi) is concerned, let him not be arrested for a period of 8 weeks in connection with the subject cases arising out of the three FIRs, being FIR Nos. 64,114 and 116 of 2016, presently registered with the Economic offences Wing Police Station and being investigated by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. Sunil Gandhi shall also have liberty similar to that granted by us to Surendra Kumar Hooda, and he shall be entitled to apply for Anticipatory Bail afresh before the concerned Court if there are changed circumstances warranting fresh consideration of such prayer.”

However, the court has given liberty to apply for bail afresh on the basis of their statement that some new developments are there.

The allegations against both the petitioners are similar. The substance of the complaints against them is failure of the company of which they were promoters to deliver possession of residential & commercial flats to a large number of home buyers in spite of realising large sums of money.

The investors approached the police with allegations of making misrepresentation to them over statutory clearances and land availability as also siphoning of funds from the company.