GURGAON: A local court has denied bail to a builder accused of cheating an NRI investor in a multi-crore commercial property deal linked to a project in Sector 85, observing that the allegations pointed to a “deliberate act of deception” and a possible criminal conspiracy.In a detailed order, additional sessions Judge Dr Gagan Geet Kaur dismissed the regular bail plea of Devender Pandey, director of KS Propmart Pvt Ltd, in connection with an FIR registered at Kherki Daula police station under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the IPC, along with provisions of the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.The case was filed on the complaint of Binayak Panigrahi, an NRI investor, and co-complainant Sushmita Chakraborty, who alleged that they were induced into investing in two commercial units in the builder’s “Park Street” project in Sector 85, Gurgaon, through promises of assured returns and a buyback scheme.According to the court order, the complainants paid Rs 87.5 lakh each towards booking amounts for two retail units in 2021 after being assured monthly pre-possession lease rentals and a guaranteed buyback option after four years.The complainants alleged that the builder stopped paying assured returns for several months, failed to complete the project, and later attempted to unilaterally adjust pending dues against the balance consideration of the units. The complaint further alleged that the developer failed to renew the project’s RERA registration and continued construction and marketing activities despite the lapse.The court also took note of allegations that forged signatures were used in addendum agreements and that investor funds may have been siphoned off.During investigation, police found that Pandey had allegedly acquired the complainant’s villa located at Sobha International City in Sector 109, Gurgaon, in a separate barter-style arrangement while simultaneously persuading him to invest in the commercial project.The court observed that buyback cheques issued to the complainant had allegedly been drawn from a dormant bank account that had seen no transactions since January 2021.“Had the cheques been issued on an active account which subsequently became short of funds, one might have viewed the transaction as a civil dispute,” the court said, adding that issuing cheques from a dormant account prima facie indicated intentional deception.The judge further observed that the timeline of events, including the purchase of the complainant’s villa and execution of MoUs for the commercial units indicated the existence of a barter arrangement and reflected “fraudulent business” practices aimed at exploiting the complainant’s funds.Pandey’s counsel argued that the dispute was civil in nature and arose out of a contractual arrangement. The defence also submitted that the complainant himself had failed to fulfil payment obligations under the MoUs and contended that the accused was willing to refund the investment amount along with pending assured returns.However, the court refused to accept the argument at the bail stage, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the growing trend of economic offences targeting innocent investors.“There is rising trend of such offences in which innocent people are trapped and their hard-earned money is duped,” the court observed while rejecting the bail plea.The court also noted the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or hampering the investigation if released on bail.Police had arrested Devender Pandey and co-accused Naveen Kumar on April 17 this year. A Gurgaon court had earlier also denied bail to Naveen Kumar on May 16 in the same case. Investigation in the matter is continuing.
