The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by an individual accused in a high-value economic offence connected to the Windsor Hill township project. The accused sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging financial irregularities and deliberate fraud against the parent company of the township development. The Court observed that the allegations involved serious economic offences, including systematic diversion of funds, and held that granting bail at this stage could impede the ongoing investigation and affect the administration of justice.
The case arose from a complaint by the director of Esotech CP Infrastructure, who alleged that large-scale financial irregularities occurred during the execution of the Windsor Hill township project, resulting in losses estimated at approximately ₹60 crore. The prosecution stated that flats, villas, and plots were sold through an undervalued process to relatives and shell companies, with subsequent resale at inflated prices, and the surplus funds were withheld from the company’s accounts. The Court noted that the transactions allegedly demonstrated a deliberate and orchestrated scheme by the accused to benefit themselves and their associates at the expense of the company.
The High Court highlighted the involvement of multiple shell companies, including Ecotech Developers, Vistar Developers, Chiranjivi Developers, Gayatri Developers, Infinity-Tech Developers, Shivam Developers, Sidharth Developers, Sundaram Developers, Suryavanshi Developers, and Surya-Tech Developers, in which relatives of the accused were shown as partners. Bank accounts were reportedly operated in the names of deceased relatives, with forged signatures facilitating large financial transactions. These funds were allegedly diverted through a network of entities connected to the accused, reflecting premeditated criminal conduct rather than ordinary commercial disputes.
During the hearing, the applicant argued that he had no managerial or directorial role in the parent company and was not involved in sales or financial transactions, claiming that his inclusion in the complaint was based on vague allegations. Despite these submissions, the Court found prima facie material supporting the prosecution’s allegations against him. The Court also considered the implications of granting bail, noting that early release could impede investigation, influence witnesses, or allow tampering with evidence in a case involving large-scale diversion of funds.
The High Court concluded that, given the serious nature of the allegations and the stage of the investigation, anticipatory bail could not be granted. The Court emphasized that in cases involving organized financial misconduct and significant economic loss, custodial interrogation might be necessary to ensure proper investigation. The anticipatory bail application was therefore dismissed, reaffirming the principle that courts must carefully balance the rights of the accused against the need to protect the integrity of the investigative process in serious economic offences.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.