NEW DELHI: Six years after being granted bail in a case involving cheating homebuyers, the Supreme Court on Thursday revoked its previous order. The court directed Satinder Singh Bhasin, the promoter of Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Private Limited, to surrender and return to custody, noting that he had breached bail conditions and misappropriated Rs 75 crore from homebuyers while on bail.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh granted Bhasin one week to surrender, stating that he must serve at least one year in jail. The court indicated that he could apply for regular bail again after 12 months and only if he fully complies with orders from the insolvency proceedings. Additionally, it instructed that his passport should not be released by the trial court without court permission.
“It has been six years since this court granted him bail, conditioning it on his commitment to settling claims from complainants. Allegations suggest that he has been deflecting responsibility, trying to place the blame on the allottees or the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Authority (UPSIDA), which is unacceptable,” the Court remarked.
Bhasin’s company had initiated the ‘Grand Venice’ housing and commercial project in Greater Noida, but it is now undergoing insolvency, with homebuyers waiting over 15 years for possession of their flats.
The court also observed that the Rs 50 crore Bhasin deposited with the court as part of his bail conditions in 2019 was sourced from his company’s account. The court ordered the forfeiture of this amount, directing that Rs 5 crore be allocated to the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the remaining Rs 45 crore paid to the resolution professional overseeing the insolvency proceedings against Bhasin’s company.
Concerning the misappropriation of Rs 74 crore, the bench stated: “While the legality and nature of these transactions will be examined in due course, it is currently sufficient to note that the transfer of Rs 74 crore to the involved entities is admitted. These entities appear to be controlled by people closely associated with the petitioner. His explanation that these transfers were made as ‘commercial advances’ or for ‘debt repayment’ is not convincing. The lack of supporting documentation raises questions about how the company’s affairs were managed.”
