Cheating Case: SC Nixes Realtor’s Bail

New Delhi: Six years after being granted bail in a cheating of homebuyers case, Supreme Court on Thursday recalled its order and directed promoter of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited to surrender and go back to jail after noting that he had violated bail conditions and also siphoned Rs 75 crore of homebuyers money while out on bail.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh granted one week time to Satinder Singh Bhasin to surrender and he has to spend at least one year in jail as the bench said that he may apply for regular bail afresh after a period of twelve months and subject to fully complying with the orders passed in the insolvency proceedings. It also directed that his passport not to be released by the trial court without its permission."Six years have passed since the liberty of bail was granted to him by this Court, subject to the condition that he will make every possible attempt to settle the claims of the concerned complainants. Allegedly, the Petitioner has been deflecting responsibility, while the onus for delay has been attempted to be shifted onto the allottees themselves or Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA), which is perhaps unacceptable," the Court said..Bhasin's company had launched the ‘Grand Venice' housing and commercial project in Greater Noida but the company is now under insolvency and homebuyers have now been waiting for more than 15 years to get possession of their flats.The court noted that Rs 50 crore amount that Bhasin had deposited with the court as part of his bail conditions in 2019 was also taken from the company's account. It directed forfeiture of the amount with Rs 5 crore to be given to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and that the remaining Rs 45 crore to be paid to the resolution professional who is conducting insolvency proceedings against Bhasin's company.Regarding siphoning of Rs 74 crore, the bench said, "While the legality and nature of these transactions would be examined in appropriate proceedings, for the present purpose, it is sufficient to note that the transfer of Rs 74 crore to the entities in question is an admitted position. These entities are prima facie shown to be controlled by persons closely related to the petitioner. The explanation offered that the said transfers were made as ‘commercial advances' or towards ‘repayment of dues' remains unsatisfactory. The absence of supporting material makes us wonder about the manner in which the affairs of the corporate debtor were managed."