The Supreme Court today cancelled the bail granted to real estate developer Satinder Singh Bhasin in connection with multiple FIRs arising out of the ‘Grand Venice’ project, holding that he had failed to comply with the conditions on which liberty was granted.
On the application for cancellation of bail by homebuyers, Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotiswar Singh found that the primary condition attached to the grant of bail in November 2019, requiring the petitioner to make every possible effort to settle the claims of investors, had not been fulfilled despite the passage of several years.
Cancelling the bail, the Court held, “The petitioner has not complied with the conditions of bail imposed upon him vide order dated 06.11.2019. Resultantly, the bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled. The petitioner to surrender within one week from the date of this judgment.”
The Court directed him to surrender before the authorities within one week and clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of cancellation of bail.
The case arises from several FIRs registered in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh alleging that he had duped investors and misappropriated funds in relation to a large real estate project comprising residential units, commercial spaces, a mall and a hotel. The petitioner had approached the Court seeking the consolidation of FIRs and the grant of bail in cases alleging non-delivery of units and diversion of funds. By an order dated November 6, 2019, the Court granted bail subject to conditions, including deposit of ₹50 crore and a specific obligation to make every possible effort to settle claims of homebuyers within a stipulated time.
Subsequently, several investors approached the Court alleging that no effective steps had been taken towards settlement. The Court, while monitoring the matter over time, repeatedly granted opportunities to the petitioner but found that compliance remained inadequate.
Earlier, while considering the issue, the Court had expressed serious concern over the petitioner’s conduct, observing, “Six years have passed since the liberty of bail was granted to him by this Court… the Petitioner has been deflecting responsibility, while the onus for delay has been attempted to be shifted onto the allottees themselves or UPSIDA, which is perhaps unacceptable.”
At that time, the court also recorded that “This Court finds it deeply concerning that… the allottees who have been shown as settled by the Petitioner still await compliance of the said agreements, despite years having passed.”
However, taking note of the continued non-compliance, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not be permitted to retain the benefit of conditional bail without fulfilling its underlying purpose.
As a consequence of the cancellation of bail, the Court ordered the forfeiture of the ₹50 crore deposited earlier. It directed that ₹5 crore be transferred to the National Legal Services Authority, while the remaining ₹45 crore be handed over to the resolution professional handling insolvency proceedings against the petitioner’s company.
The Court further directed that the petitioner’s passport shall not be released without its permission and clarified that he may apply for regular bail afresh after a period of twelve months, subject to compliance with orders passed in related insolvency proceedings.
