Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of the interim relief prayers in a writ petition filed by Satinder Singh Bhasin, a director of a company involved in the 'Grand Venice' project in the National Capital Region. The petitioner sought bail in respect of multiple FIRs registered at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, and at Police Station Economic Offences Wing and Parliament Street, New Delhi, as well as all other FIRs lodged against him in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. He also sought stay of proceedings from those FIRs. The substantive relief claimed under Article 32 of the Constitution was for a mandamus directing the CBI to take over investigation of all FIRs, or alternatively, consolidation of FIRs and entrustment to one agency. The Court noted that the petitioner's bail applications in 17 FIRs at Kasna had been rejected by the concerned court, and those orders were not challenged. However, the Court observed that the allegations in all FIRs were virtually similar, relating to non-delivery of possession of units, non-completion of the project, and siphoning of funds. The petitioner had been granted bail in 11 out of 37 cases at Kasna and in 3 out of 5 cases in Delhi, but remained in custody since 12th February 2019 due to successive FIRs and custody warrants. The Court found that the project had received completion and occupancy certificates, and the petitioner claimed to have handed over possession to many allottees. Taking an overall view, the Court granted interim bail to the petitioner in connection with all FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (c) and other FIRs related to the project in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. The Court did not grant the relief of stay of proceedings at this stage. Regarding the substantive relief, the Court held that transfer of investigation to CBI was not warranted, and consolidation of all FIRs did not merit consideration, but the alternative relief of entrusting investigation to one agency in one State was a debatable issue to be considered later.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Interim Bail - Multiple FIRs - Common Allegations - Supreme Court granted interim bail to the petitioner in all FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (c) and other FIRs related to the 'Grand Venice' project, noting that the allegations across FIRs are virtually similar and the petitioner has been in custody since 12th February 2019 due to successive FIRs and custody warrants. (Paras 1-12) B) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Investigation - Consolidation of FIRs - The Court held that the facts do not warrant transfer of investigation to CBI, and the first part of alternative relief for consolidation of all FIRs does not merit consideration. However, the second part of alternative relief (entrusting investigation to one agency in one State) is a debatable issue requiring deeper consideration. (Paras 3-4) C) Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Violation of Fundamental Rights - The petitioner invoked Article 32 alleging violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(d), and 21, seeking mandamus for CBI investigation or consolidation of FIRs. The Court did not decide on the substantive relief at this stage. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim bail in respect of multiple FIRs registered in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi arising from the same project, and whether the investigation of all FIRs should be transferred to CBI or consolidated.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court granted interim bail to the petitioner in connection with all FIRs mentioned in prayer clause (c) and other FIRs related to the 'Grand Venice' project, in particular Mall and Commercial Tower, at Police Station Kasna, Gautam Budh Nagar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh or any other Police Station within Uttar Pradesh, and FIRs registered at Police Station Parliament Street and by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi or otherwise. The Court did not grant the relief of stay of proceedings at this stage. Regarding substantive relief, the Court held that transfer of investigation to CBI is not warranted, consolidation of all FIRs does not merit consideration, but the alternative relief of entrusting investigation to one agency in one State is a debatable issue to be considered later.
Law Points
- Interim bail
- Multiple FIRs
- Common allegations
- Article 32
- Article 14
- Article 19(1)(d)
- Article 21
- Transfer of investigation
- Consolidation of FIRs
