A Special Court has rejected the bail plea of Unitech promoters Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, stating that the intention of the promoters from the very beginning was to “cheat”.
Special Judge Rakesh Pandit, while rejecting the bail plea on August 9, said, “It appears that the intention of the M/s Unitech Company and its managing director, from the very beginning, was to cheat. In these circumstances, on merits, no ground exists for bail. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.”
The court then directed that the accused be taken to Tihar Jail and later be produced on August 11 in front of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) concerned. The accused were sent to judicial custody till August 25 by the order of the ACMM court.
The Special Court stated that from the perusal of records, it appeared that the accused and their company were taking “payments” without having “requisite approvals” from government authorities for the purpose of construction of a residential colony.
According to court records, a complaint was filed by one Arun Bedi and an FIR was registered on May 31, 2015 by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police. The court said that as per the probe, Unitech Limited came up with a residential property, ‘Wild Flowers Country’, in Gurgaon. The complainant and other applicants — 152 in total — applied for residential accommodation in the project. The accused were arrested in April and later granted three-month interim bail by Additional District and Sessions Judge Raj Kapoor.
The Special Court said that Rs 363 crore was collected by Unitech Ltd, but only “land filling” work was done and a “few sewerage pits” were constructed on the site. “No construction work has started,” stated the record.
“It did not have any demarcation-cum-revised layout plan. No zoning plan and building plan was submitted by Unitech Ltd. There were outstanding dues with government authorities. No environment clearance was obtained at the time of taking booking,” stated the court records.
During the bail plea, the counsel for the accused said that they are reaching “settlement with a number of persons” and till date, about 50 people have settled the matter.
The plea was opposed by the prosecutor, who stated that the accused was not making the full and final payment. The prosecution alleged that the money was “siphoned off”.