GURUGRAM: A local court has denied bail to builder Devendra Pandey, accused of defrauding an NRI investor in a multi-crore commercial property deal associated with a project in Sector 85. The court found that the allegations suggested a “deliberate act of deception” and possibly a criminal conspiracy.
In an elaborate ruling, Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gagan Geet Kaur dismissed Pandey’s regular bail plea related to an FIR filed at Kherki Daula police station under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the IPC, in addition to the Haryana Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act.
The case was brought forward by NRI investor Binayak Panigrahi and co-complainant Sushmita Chakraborty. They claimed they were lured into investing in two commercial units in Pandey’s “Park Street” project in Sector 85, Gurgaon, based on promises of guaranteed returns and a buyback scheme.
As per the court’s ruling, the investors each paid Rs 87.5 lakh as booking amounts in 2021, under the impression that they would receive monthly lease rentals before possession and a guaranteed buyback after four years.
The plaintiffs alleged that the builder ceased payments for the promised returns for several months, did not complete the project, and unilaterally attempted to adjust outstanding dues against the remaining consideration for the units. The complaint further stated that the developer failed to renew the project’s RERA registration and continued construction and marketing despite this lapse.
The court also acknowledged allegations that forged signatures were used in addendum agreements and that investor funds may have been misappropriated.
During the investigation, police discovered that Pandey allegedly acquired the complainants’ villa in Sobha International City, Sector 109, Gurgaon, through a barter arrangement while persuading them to invest in the commercial endeavor.
The court noted that the buyback cheques issued to the complainants were reportedly drawn from a dormant account that had seen no transactions since January 2021. The judge stated, “If the cheques had originated from an active account that later became short of funds, it could have been interpreted as a civil issue,” adding that using cheques from a dormant account suggests intentional wrongdoing.
The ruling emphasized that a timeline of events, which included the purchase of the complainant’s villa and the signing of MOUs for the commercial units, indicated the existence of a barter arrangement and portrayed “fraudulent business” practices aimed at exploiting the complainants’ funds.
In defense, Pandey’s attorney argued that the dispute was civil in nature stemming from a contractual agreement. They also contended that the complainant had failed to meet payment obligations under the MOUs and that Pandey was willing to refund the investment along with pending assured returns.
However, the court rejected this argument, highlighting the gravity of the allegations and the increasing trend of economic offenses targeting unsuspecting investors. “There is a rising trend of such offenses where innocent individuals are deceived and their hard-earned money is swindled,” the court remarked while denying the bail plea.
The court also expressed concerns about the potential for the accused to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation if released on bail.
Devendra Pandey and co-accused Naveen Kumar were arrested by police on April 17 this year. A separate court had also denied bail to Naveen Kumar on May 16 in connection with the same case. The investigation continues.
