Royal Palm Builder A. Choudhary goes into hiding; Crime branch on lookout

Jammu and Kashmir

JAMMU, Apr 2:  As 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu, M K Sharma today rejected the pre-arrest bail of Amar Nath Choudhary and his wife Mohini Devi, who have allegedly committed fraud with the people regarding allotments at Royal Palm, Crime Branch raided residence of the accused who, could not be traced however.

As soon as the court issued the order of dismissal of the bail application, Crime Branch sleuths, led by a senior officer, raided Amar Nath Choudhary’s residence at Canal Road as well as his nearby Saw Mill complex for arresting the accused but he could not be traced out, said SSP Crime, Mubbasir Latifi.

According to the Crime Branch, the petitioners have been booked for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120-B RPC. The petitioners/accused along with one Radhey Shyam Chowdhary, son of the petitioners, entered into a joint venture with M/s Ridhi Sidhi Infra Projects Pvt Ltd for construction of a multiplex on a piece of land owned by the petitioners/accused.

As per the terms of agreement, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Infra Projects Pvt Ltd was to raise the project and the profit had to be shared by both the parties as per agreement. The petitioners/accused were under obligation to transfer the space in the multiplex by way of sale deeds in favour of the investors.

It was alleged that the petitioners/accused in order to cheat the investors as well as the partner, have backtracked from discharging their obligation.  On the basis of preliminary enquiry, Crime No.53/2016 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120-B RPC was registered against the petitioners, who have filed petition under 497-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in anticipation of arrest.

2nd Additional Sessions Judge observed, “it is not a case of false implication nor it has been registered at the instance of some unscrupulous or irresponsible person. Moreover, anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule. It is to be granted only in special cases when some influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them”.

“Some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of economic offences and that too, when investigation is in progress.  In the instant case also, the investigation is in infancy and grant of bail in anticipation of arrest may hamper the investigation. The case involves hard earned money of dozens of investors for residential or commercial space in the multiplex. Moreover, economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail”, the court said.

“The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country”, the court further observed, adding “on this ground also, the petitioners are not entitled to the protection of bail in anticipation of arrest”.
With these observations, court rejected the bail application.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *