Delhi Court dismisses anticipatory bail application of Rudra Group Promoter Mukesh Khurana
Mar 26, 2022
New Delhi [India], March 26 : Delhi's Saket Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Builder, Mukesh Khurana, Promoter of Rudra Group of Companies.
Mukesh Khurana, Promoter, Director and majority shareholder of M/s Rudra Buildwell Projects Pvt. Ltd. is a builder, who is allegedly have duped several home buyers. One such case is the latest First Information Report (FIR) against Mukesh Khurana, in a series of FIRs registered against him in the recent past.
The FIR stated that Mukesh Khurana and others made several false representations regarding the delivery of flats within time and other representations and allegedly induced the complainant to book 11 flats in the project named "Palace Heights", taking 75 per cent upfront payment.
Later it came to light that the said 11 flats allegedly had also been sold to 11 different home buyers, and around Rs 2.39 crore were taken from them also.
Accused Mukesh Khurana had sought anticipatory bail in the matter, wherein he was granted interim protection in April 2021.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Atul Kumar Garg while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea on March 24, 2022, said, "the person who has come for seeking relief must have come before the court with clean hands. The applicant has been enjoying the interim protection from April 13, 2021, till March 16, 2022, and still, he is not interested to argue the bail application on merit."
The mere filing of the Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi does not entitle the applicant to seek adjournment. This court has already observed in its order itself that it is only delaying tactics by levelling scandalous allegations against the court.
In these circumstances, the present application for seeking adjournment again stands dismissed. Consequent thereto, when the applicant is not interested in arguing his anticipatory bail application, the application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed for want of prosecution, said the court.
Adv. Mudit Jain appearing for the complainant argued before the Court that the applicant has been delaying the matter on one pretext or another. No interim stay has been granted by the Officiating District Judge, South District Saket Court, New Delhi.
Moreover, the applicant is in a habit of filing a Writ Petition in order to get adjournments. He further submitted that the applicant is trying to brow-beat this court by making scandalous allegations and filing the complaint to the Registrar Vigilance, High court of Delhi.
