The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted conditional “short term” bail of 60 days to Mukesh Khurana, the proprietor of Rudra Builders, who had duped many prospective flat owners of their money. Justice Om Prakash-VII passed this order while hearing a criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by Khurana.
The court observed: “On close analysis of entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as medical evidence and also looking to the nature of the offense and treatment undergone in the matter of the applicant as well as the opinion of the jail doctor and also taken into consideration the interim bail granted to the co-accused Gautam Mehra by the trial court, the court is of the opinion that applicant has made out a case for short term bail.” The court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on July 29.
The court ordered: “The applicant Mukesh Khurana involved in the case under sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Phase 3, Sector-71, District Gautam Budh Nagar, be released on short term bail for a period of 60 days from the date of his release subject to executing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.”
Khurana, the proprietor of Rudra Group of Companies and Rudra Builders, started Pavo Real Project in Ghaziabad in 2012. Investments were invited from lakhs of people, with the promise of giving flats. However, the land on which the building was supposed to be built was found to be government, belonging to the gram sabha.
Nobody got any flat, but the money invested by the applicants was not refunded. An FIR was registered in the Phase-3 police station of Sector-7 of Gautam Budh Nagar and the petitioner was sent to jail.
Rebecca John, Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant, argued that Khurana had suffered a heart attack. Due to that reason, concerned jail authorities sent the applicant for treatment to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, where he stayed for many days and thereafter was again shifted to jail. John contended that there is a clear report on part of the jail doctor as well as doctor conducting the treatment of the applicant at Safdarjung Hospital that the applicant’s blood pressure continuously remains high. Trop-T Test was also conducted during treatment and the same was found positive, which clearly indicates that applicant is at risk of suffering a heart attack again at any point of time.
The counsel to substantiate the argument also referred to the prescription annexed and argued that the Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the prayer made by the applicant to release him on interim bail.
The counsel further argued that co-accused Gautam Mehra has been enlarged on interim bail by the lower court itself. Khurana had also tested Covid positive and that proper treatment is not available to the applicant in jail.
Dilip Kumar, Senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor, argued that documents annexed with the application do not show that the applicant had suffered any heart attack at any point in time. The findings of the Trop-T Test are not conclusive proof of the applicant suffering from heart disease or that he had suffered a heart attack at any point of time. She said that the sessions judge had rightly disposed of the application.
It was also stated in court by the state’s advocate that proper treatment of the accused is being provided when needed. It was also stated that it is clear from the order of March 12, 2021, that a Panel of 3 Doctors of AIIMS opined that there was no need for urgent surgery of the applicant. In that situation, the court recalled the interim bail granted to the accused. The court observed that in a similar matter interim bail prayer has been rejected in Himanshu Dabas (supra) case by Delhi High Court doubting the genuineness of the medical certificate issued by a private doctor. Thus, the facts of the present case also differ from the case of the Himanshu Dabas (supra) case. In Gayatri Prasad Prajapati (supra) case, Supreme Court set aside the parole granted to the convicted accused on the ground that the High Court has not considered nor referred to the report of SGPGI, Super Speciality Hospital. ILNS\AP\SS\SJ