Friday, April 19, 2024
HomeNewsTop NewsCourt rejects Rudra Group promoter's interim bail plea

Court rejects Rudra Group promoter’s interim bail plea

He had been arrested for allegedly duping homebuyers on November 3 last year, after an FIR was registered by a home-buyer Sunita Singh, in relation to Pavo Real Project of M/s Rudra Buildwell Realty Private Limited.

 Rudra Group promoter Mukesh Khurana interim bail plea has been dismissed by the Sessions Court in Gautam Budh Nagar

Khurana had sought interim bail on the ground that he had tested positive for COVID-19 and he was suffering from other ailments.

He had been arrested for allegedly duping homebuyers on November 3 last year, after an FIR was registered by a home-buyer Sunita Singh, in relation to Pavo Real Project of M/s Rudra Buildwell Realty Private Limited.

The Session Court, while rejecting the interim bail plea of the accused, recorded that in terms of the High Power Committee, Uttar Pradesh as the regular bail application of the accused is pending before the Allahabad High Court.

Earlier, the Khurana’s regular bail application was also rejected by the Sessions Court in December last year after which the accused approached the High Court of Allahabad. His bail is under consideration before the High Court.

The interim bail application was opposed by the advocate Rishi Aggarwal, Counsel for the victim on the ground that the accused has not disclosed about the pendency of the bail before the High Court, and that the accused was not covered under the High Power Committee (HPC) Minutes as the accused is alleged to have committed grave offences of forgery under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offences subjected to be punishable up to life imprisonment and as such, he was not entitled to interim bail.

Khurana was arrested by the Noida Police after an FIR was registered in relation to the Pavo Real Housing Project in Indirapuram, in which the complainant Sunita Singh was in need of a flat to make arrangements for her son’s higher education.

According to the lawyer’s submission, he has been facing cases filed by homebuyers before the consumer forum, NCLT, RERA, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

RELATED ARTICLES

Most Popular

Hot News