"No Coercive Action Can Be Taken," On SpiceJet Promoter Ajay Singh, Directs Delhi Court
A Delhi court has granted interim protection from arrest to SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh in connection with an alleged cheating case over the transfer of shares of the company.
Additional Sessions Judge Vineeta Goyal also directed Mr Singh, Chairman and Managing Director of Spicejet, against whom a non-bailable warrant was issued on January 15, to join the investigation and seek a status report from the Delhi Police on his anticipatory bail plea in the case.
"Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the accused is directed to join the investigation on March 11, 2022 (Friday) at 1.00 PM and further as and when called by IO," the court said in its order passed on March 9.
"List this application on March 28, at 2 PM. Till then, no coercive action be taken against the applicant/accused," it added.
The complainant Preeti Nanda has alleged that Mr Singh had executed a share purchase agreement for selling shares of SpiceJet, according to which Rs 10 lakh were transferred to his account by her, and the accused provided a duly executed 'Delivery Instruction Slip' for crediting the complainant's account with 10 lakh shares.
The complainant, represented by senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, has alleged that it was subsequently found that the delivery instruction slip was invalid and outdated.
Seeking anticipatory bail, Mr Singh told the court that he had been falsely implicated and no offence under Section 420 (cheating) IPC was made out.
He claimed that the transfer of shares was subject to a pending dispute between him and the erstwhile owner of the company.
Singh, represented by lawyer N Hariharan, also said that his bonafide could be seen from the fact that he had requested the complainant not to undertake steps under the agreement until the confirmation of the outcome of the dispute.
Apart from communicating the indisputable facts to the complainant, the sum of Rs 10 lakh was also refunded to the complainant, it was said.
Singh stated that he was ready and willing to join the investigation, which he could not do earlier on account of the pandemic.
Delhi police, represented by additional public prosecutor Anil Kumar, opposed the anticipatory bail plea and claimed that the accused had "dishonest intentions from the very beginning" and did not join the investigation when called by the investigating officer.
It also said that four other cases are registered against the accused of the alleged commission of an offence under section 420 IPC.
