Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Alok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 13 March, 2026
1
ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4073/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-02-2025
in CRWJC No. 1523/2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna]
ALOK KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 61709/2026 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 67657/2026 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 61707/2026 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 209000/2025 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 61871/2026 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 69649/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 183888/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 160991/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 64720/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 69650/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 61711/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 64594/2026 - EXTENSION OF BAIL IA No. 64718/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 64702/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 188194/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 68793/2026 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION IA No. 54575/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 52440/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 10883/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 64164/2026 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 195246/2025 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT IA No. 159135/2025 - RELEASE OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT Date : 13-03-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) :Signature Not Verified
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv.Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2026.03.16
Mr. Varun Singh, Adv.
18:10:30 IST Reason: Mr. Nitin Saluja, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mohammad Atif Ahmad, Adv. Ms. Bhumi Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Chandra, Adv.2
Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv.
Ms. Khushi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Samir Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kashif Irshad Khan, Adv.
Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Aakriti Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Divyam Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Prakash Mishra, Adv. Ms. Parthvi Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Khushal Kolwar, Adv.
Mr. Chakradhari Saran Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Deepraj, Adv.
Mr. Rishikesh Rajan, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Prakash Sharma, AOR Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR Mr. Punit Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Silki Trehan, Adv.
Mr. Akash Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Mahender Rathour, Adv.
Mr. Darpan Lohia, Adv.
Mr. Umesh Choubey, Adv.
Mr. Naresh Nagar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR Mr. Neeraj, Adv.
Mr. Thakur Sumit, Adv.
Ms. Divya Roy, AOR Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv Ms. Sulekha Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Choudhury, Adv.
Miss Shivangi Singh Rawat, AOR Mr. Shikhar Srivastava, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Prem Chhatri, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.3
Mr. Suresh Pal Malik, Adv.
Ms. Mehak Chaudhury, Adv.
Ms.Priyanka, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. In pursuance of our last Order dated 26-2-2026, the petitioner has filed an affidavit of compliance stating as under:-
AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE CUM DETAILED STRUCTURED SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER IN SLP (CRL.) 4073 OF 2025 TITLED AS “ALOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.” (UNDER ORDERS DATED 12.08.2025 AND 26.02.2026 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT) I, Alok Kumar, S/o Late Shri Padam Singh, aged about 52 years, Resident of Yogipur, Chitragupta Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, P.O. Lohianagar, Kankarbagh, Patna – 800020, presently on interim bail pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
I. PREFATORY SUBMISSION AND SCOPE OF THE PRESENT AFFIDAVIT
1. This affidavit is filed in compliance with the specific directions issued by this Hon’ble Court vide Order dated 26.02.2026, read with and in continuation of the earlier Order dated 12.08.2025 passed in the present Special Leave Petition.
2. The present affidavit is not a routine compliance filing. It is intended to place before this Hon’ble Court a comprehensive factual, financial and legal matrix so that the continuation of interim bail may be considered in the proper constitutional and recovery-oriented perspective in which this Hon’ble Court initially granted such liberty.
3. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the orders dated 12.08.2025 and 26.02.2026 together constitute a judicially supervised recovery framework. The interim bail granted by this Hon’ble Court was granted to ensure that the Petitioner is able to satisfy the liability arising out of the FIRs registered against him while also working towards restitution of other homebuyers and not merely to the personal liberty of the Petitioner in isolation. The Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for approximately two years and ten months prior to being enlarged on interim bail. The jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court has consistently held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where pre-trial detention assumes a punitive character. The present case is not one involving allegations of violence, threat to witnesses, or flight risk. It is fundamentally 4 financial-regulatory in character. The continuation of interim bail under strict supervision would be consistent with constitutional principles and the recovery-oriented approach already adopted by this Hon’ble Court.
II. BACKGROUND – ORDER DATED 12.08.2025
4. By a considered and detailed order dated 12.08.2025, this Hon’ble Court to give an opportunity to the Petitioner for settling the claims arising out of the FIRs registered against the Petitioner and directed as follows:
(a) Subsequent FIRs arising out of the same transaction be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC;
(b) Directed consolidation of proceedings and the first FIR dated 11.01.2018 registered with Shastri Nagar Police Station, Patna, Bihar and subsequent FIRs be treated as statement under Section 161 of The Criminal Procedure Code;
(c) Granted interim bail for a period of six months;
(d) Directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of ₹9,94,00,357/-
with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court, within a period of six months.
5. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the tenor and structure of the order dated 12.08.2025 clearly demonstrate that this Hon’ble Court adopted a pragmatic and restitution- driven approach, recognising that continued incarceration, in the peculiar facts of the present case, would not necessarily advance the financial interests of the aggrieved allottees.
6. The liberty granted was conditional, structured and purposive.
It was not a gratuitous enlargement, but an instrument to enable monetisation of assets so that interest of the home buyers may be secured.
7. The Petitioner was thus entrusted, under the direct supervision of this Hon’ble Court, with the responsibility of mobilising resources through lawful sale of immovable assets. III. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS – ORDER DATED 26.02.2026
8. Upon listing of the matter on 26.02.2026, this Hon’ble Court was informed that the entire amount of ₹9,94,00,357/- had not yet been deposited.
9. Instead of revoking interim bail, this Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant one final opportunity, subject to specific disclosures, namely:
(i) Details of two immovable properties proposed to be sold;
(ii) The nature and extent of charge or encumbrance upon such properties;5
(iii) Full particulars of the proposed purchaser;
(iv) Production of the purchaser before this Hon’ble Court.
10. The very structure of the order dated 26.02.2026 demonstrates that this Hon’ble Court remains seized not merely of the question of bail, but of the structured liquidation process itself.
11. The present affidavit is filed in faithful compliance with the said directions.
IV. COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 12.08.2025
12. Since being enlarged on interim bail, the Petitioner has:
Furnished requisite bail bonds;
Regularly marked attendance at the concerned police station as directed;
Not attempted to influence any witness;
Not created any third-party interest in any property without disclosure;
Cooperated fully in all proceedings.
13. There has been no allegation of misuse of liberty.
14. The Petitioner respectfully submits that his conduct post-
release reflects bona fides and seriousness of purpose.
15. Since, the order dated 12.08.2025 was passed keeping in mind the interest of home buyers, the Petitioner though not have deposited an amount of Rs.9,94,00,357/- (Rupees Nine Crore Ninety Four Lakhs and Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only). It is noteworthy to say that Petitioner, till date, have settled the disputes arising out of 25 criminal cases/F.I.R. amounting to Rs.3,49,28,860/- (Rupees Three Crores Forty Nine Lacs Twenty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred Sixty Only). That of the 25 FIRs, the Petitioner settled its liability by refunding 15 homebuyers their due amounts through RTGS/Cheque/DD, handed over flats to 3 homebuyers, registered land in favour of 5 homebuyers, while depositing around 2 Crores before RERA qua the projects which form the subject matter of 2 FIRs. The on- going negotiations for the property at shows the bona-fide of the petitioner and also proves the fact, the liberty granted by this Hon’ble Court was never misused and the Petitioner have in-part fulfilled the motive of the order dated 12.08.2025. The details of settled 25 criminal cases/F.I.R amounting to Rs.3,49,28,860/- is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-1 (Pgs
16. The conduct of the Petitioner clearly reflects that even-if the amount of Rs.9,94,00,357/- has not been deposited but 6 still the purpose for which the bail was granted has been achieved, as the Petitioner is still making efforts to come up with the remaining amount.
V. STRUCTURAL REASONS FOR NON-DEPOSIT OF FULL AMOUNT
17. The Petitioner candidly states that he has not yet been able to deposit the entire amount of ₹9,94,00,357/- but still it is apparent from the records that Petitioners liabilities amounting to ₹3,49,28,860/- were settled which shows the bona- fide of the Petitioner and proves that non-depositing of the amount before this Hon’ble Court is neither intentional nor wilful.
18. The Petitioner’s constant efforts for disposing-off the properties are effected mainly due to the following reasons:-
1. Attachment of Properties : The Petitioner’s principal assets consist of immovable properties, many of which are subject to Recovery Certificates issued by UP-RERA and rest are under attachment or their original title deeds are deposited with Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Bihar.
2. Petitioner’s Weakened Position:- As the deadline is approaching and being aware of the conditions and duration of bail, the potential buyers are proposing the value which is even much lesser to the market rate which is weaking the negotiations.
3. Ongoing Projects: The Petitioner in order to resolve the disputes of the home-buyers is in process of demarcating and allotting the plots, the details of such projects is:-
(i) SBI Nagar Project: Settlement framework is negotiated with 94 consenting allottees who have accepted to accept demarcated plots on the 27 Katha i.e. 4083 sq. yds. of land at Dhawalpura, Patna, as full and final settlement of their claims. Out of the same, 21 of these allottees have already handed over the written consent.
(ii) Saran District Properties : The Petitioner has proposed a substantial land in District Saran for settling the claims by providing them demarcated plot. Previously this model has been successful in settling the claims of 43 allottees. However, this plan is obstructed by way of illegal encroachment by a third party “SHITAL GREEN CITY”, appeared during the Petitioner’s incarceration.
4. Ongoing construction: The Petitioner is in process of completing the partially built projects specifically in ‘IOB Nagar B Block and G Block’ where the apartments are in partially constructed state. Upon completion of the 7 construction, the Petitioner will handover the apartments to 84 allottees of these blocks. However, the Petitioner is occupied in liaising with the construction and other contractors and also, overseeing the work by remaining present on-site.
5. Legal Management: During the period of incarceration, the Petitioner failed to manage the legal cases properly and after proper analyzation it has been revealed that out of the 976 decrees passed by RERA, 550 cases have duplicate entries, including already settled claims and incorrect principal amounts. Therefore, the Petitioner is also engaged with his legal representatives/counsels so as to cure the same, which is necessary and mandatory, otherwise, the same will cause great prejudice to the Petitioner.
19. The Petitioner is trying hard from day one to dispose-off the properties but the buyers have not agreed to proceed further being aware of litigation qua the properties and also, the fact that the properties can be disposed-off only after obtaining permission from this Hon’ble Court. It is noteworthy to mention that numerous attempts were made by putting the property being used in SBI Nagar project in auction but no suitable buyers came forward and after the Petitioner was admitted on temporary bail the Petitioner has used the same property and successfully settled with 21 allottees (as on date).
20. However, this inability is not attributable to unwillingness, but to structural and regulatory impediments affecting liquidity.
21. In all, 586 Recovery Certificates have been issued, out of which the principal component is stated to be ₹40,10,66,860/-.
22. The properties at Mauza Kesharipur, Varanasi, were attached pursuant to such Recovery Certificates.
23. Over a period of approximately four years, nearly 50 auction attempts were undertaken by the district administration. The same reason is appearing with the Petitioner as the purchasers are not coming forward to show interest in buying the properties even at a lesser rate compared to similarly situated properties.
24. Despite repeated attempts, only one property (Arazi No. 398) could be sold, and that too at circle rate, far below potential negotiated market value.
25. The auction mechanism has therefore demonstrably failed to produce meaningful recovery.
VI. PROPERTY A – ARAZI NOS. 401 & 402, MAUZA KESHARIPUR 8
26. The first property proposed for sale comprises Arazi Nos. 401 & 402 situated at Mauza Kesharipur, Pargana Dehat Amanat, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi. It is submitted that Arazi No. 401 and 402, at Mauza Kesharipur is part of a larger parcel of land, the description of which is as follows: ARAZI NOS - 418, 398, 453, 459, 368, 450, 577, 382, 447, 443, 446, 455, 401, 402, 419, 420,368, 450, 423, 432. A Copy of the details of the entire larger parcel of land is as annexed herein as ANNEXURE A-2 (Pgs
27. It is further submitted that that the total number of homebuyers in the larger parcel of land are 586, with a total liability of Rs. 40,10,66,860/- (the principal amount due). Further, the total saleable value of the entire parcel of land, as per the Petitioners estimates, is approximately Rs. 45 Crores.
A List of the 586 Homebuyers is annexed herein as ANNEXURE A- 3 (Pgs
28. These properties are presently under attachment pursuant to Recovery Certificates. It is pertinent to mention herein that the total liability as mentioned above is subject to change as the Petitioner has noted various discrepancies qua the claims raised against him before RERA wherein there are instances of inflated claims being raised and claims which have already been settled being raised. Since the Petitioner was in incarcerated during the time when the Recovery certificates were issued, the Petitioner never got an opportunity to challenge the said Recovery Certificates.
29. The Petitioner has secured a confirmed purchaser, namely Pratham Vinayak Infra Developers LLP for purchase of Arazri no.401 and 402.
30. The agreed sale consideration is ₹22,60,42,000/-. The Petitioner undertakes to provide the entire sale consideration to this Hon`ble Court for further distribution of the entire money towards the home buyers.
31. The purchaser has issued a Letter of Intent and is prepared to appear before this Hon’ble Court, as directed. The copy of the Letter of Intent is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-4(Pgs
32. The Petitioner respectfully submits that the proposed sale is at a negotiated market value substantially higher than distress auction value.
33. It is submitted that at present are 586 homebuyers which are interested in the settlement of the dues with respect to all the Arazi properties. With the sale of the Property A, 393 members of IOBians Mitra Kalyan Samiti (which is a body of homebuyers) shall be satisfied, who have, in principle, agreed to accept repayment of principal amounts along with ₹35,000/-
9per member towards litigation expenses. The liability qua the remaining homebuyers will be settled by sale of other neighbouring parcels of land, for which the Petitioner is actively looking for purchasers.
A List of 393 members of the IOBians Mitra Kalyan Samiti is annexed herein as ANNEXURE A-5 (Pgs
34. The proposed sale of Arazi Nos. 401 & 402 would substantially reduce outstanding principal liability. The sale of the property would also benefit other builders to come forward with a restructuring plan for other parcel of lands. VII. PROPERTY B – BACCHAWA LAND PARCELS
35. The second set of properties comprises land bearing Arazi Nos. 516, 517, 543, 544, 499, 526, 522, 523, 524, 520, 470, 469, 521, 525, 527, 529, 531, 554, 555, 540, 528, 530, 549, 546 situated at Bacchawa, Varanasi. It is pertinent to mention herein that the project undertaken by the Petitioner herein was of sale of Plots instead of construction of flats etc. As such, there is no encumbrance on the said properties.
36. On 08.06.2021, UPRERA Bench -01, while dealing with projects of the Petitioner qua other properties of the Petitioner, passed an order stating that no properties in the State of Uttar Pradesh shall be sold by the Deponent until further orders. Thereafter the UPRERA bench – 01 formed a monitoring committee to oversee the refund of the homebuyers in a timely manner vide order dated: 09.06.2021. Subsequently to order dated: 09.06.2021 Ld. UPRERA Bench-01 passed orders dated:
07.07.2021, 24.12.2021 and 22.01.2022 giving permission to sell several properties in order to refund the homebuyers but since the properties were already attached by the tehsil, pursuant to earlier directions of UPRERA, no sale could take place through the monitoring committee. The monitoring committee formed vide order dated: 09.06.2021 was dissolved vide order dated: 25.07.2022, on the request of all the parties present including the homebuyers, and in order dated:
25.07.2022 the Ld. UPRERA Bench -01 withdrew all the orders in respect to sale – purchase of the properties previously passed by it therefore, any charge on the abovementioned properties at Bacchawa were again withdrawn. The copy of order dated 08.06.2021 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-6.
The copy of order dated 09.06.2021 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-7. The copy of order dated 07.07.2021 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-8. The copy of order dated 24.12.2021 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-9. The copy of order dated 22.01.2022 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-10. The copy of order dated 25.07.2022 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-11
37. Subsequently, the Execution application were filed by the homebuyers before the Ld. UPREAT and in few cases the recovery 10 certificate were issued. Subsequent to the issuance of the Recovery Certificate a Recall application was filed by the Deponent before the Ld. UPREAT and order dated 16.08.2022 was passed by Ld. UPREAT stating that the Deponent shall not sell any properties till further orders i.e., the deponent was restricted to sell properties at Bacchawa too. The copy of order dated 16.08.2022 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-12.
38. That vide order dated 11.10.2022 the Ld. UPREAT allowed sale of certain properties subject to certain terms and conditions and a copy of the order was marked to Ld. UPRERA and District Magistrate Varanasi. Ld. UPREAT formed a committee vide order dated 18.10.2022 and along with other members a member was to be appointed by the Chairman UPRERA and one member was to be appointed by the District Magistrate Varanasi in order to make the refund process smooth but the same was not done by the Chairman, UPRERA and District Magistrate Varanasi due to which the entire process of refund was frustrated whereas, the Deponent had arranged investors for the same project but due to non-compliance of the orders by the UPRERA and local administration at Varanasi the process couldn’t be materialized and the Deponent was arrested on 14.10.2022 by Bihar Police after which the investors turned away and the Executions applications along with the Recall Application was decided vide order dated: 28.03.2024 therefore, all the charge over the properties at Bacchawa were withdrawn. The copy of order dated 11.10.2022 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-13. The copy of order dated 18.10.2022 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-14. The copy of order dated 28.03.2024 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE A-15.
39. These properties are not presently under attachment pursuant to any subsisting Recovery Certificate.
40. Though earlier regulatory restraints were imposed by UP-RERA and proceedings were carried to UPREAT, subsequent developments, including dissolution of the Monitoring Committee and disposal of execution/recall proceedings, have altered the regulatory position.
41. There is presently no operative attachment prohibiting sale of these parcels
42. The Petitioner is in advanced negotiations for monetisation of these parcels by sale of plots on the said land and estimates significant realizable value. The amount realized from the sale of these plots shall be deposited with this Hon’ble Court for settling the liabilities arising out of the FIRs against the Petitioner.
43. ECONOMIC LOGIC OF CONTINUATION OF INTERIM BAIL
44. Real estate monetisation is not a passive activity. It requires:
11 Negotiation with purchasers;
Coordination with revenue authorities; Execution and registration of sale deeds; Settlement discussions with allottees; Compliance with regulatory formalities.
45. Incarceration at this stage would:
Collapse ongoing negotiations;
Depress asset value;
Lead to distress pricing;
Delay recovery;
Ultimately prejudice the very homebuyers whose interests are sought to be protected.
46. Liberty, in the peculiar facts of this case, is functionally necessary to secure restitution of all home buyers.
47. CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK – ARTICLE 21 The Petitioner has already undergone incarceration for approximately two years and nine months prior to being enlarged on interim bail.
The jurisprudence of this Hon’ble Court has consistently held that bail is the rule and jail the exception, particularly where pre-trial detention assumes a punitive character.
In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2012 (1) SCC 40, this Hon’ble Court held that pre-trial detention should not be used as a measure of punishment.
In Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 534 this Hon’ble Court reiterated the centrality of liberty under Article 21 in bail adjudication.
In Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra dated 03.07.2024 arising out of Crl.A.2787/2024, this Hon’ble Court emphasised the human dimension of criminal process and reformative justice.
The present case is not one involving allegations of violence, threat to witnesses, or flight risk. It is fundamentally financial-regulatory in character. The continuation of interim bail under strict supervision would be consistent with constitutional principles and the recovery-oriented approach already adopted by this Hon’ble Court.
48. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE AND EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
a) If interim bail is cancelled:
Negotiations will fail;
Asset values will deteriorate;
Recovery will revert to failed auction mechanisms; Homebuyers will face further delay.
b) If interim bail is continued:
Sale proceeds can be secured directly by the Registry; Court-monitored distribution can be ensured;12
Transparency can be maintained; Structured compliance can be enforced.
The balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours continuation of interim bail under supervision.
49. UNDERTAKINGS The Petitioner unequivocally undertakes:
i. Entire sale proceeds shall be deposited directly with the Registry of this Hon’ble Court;
ii. No diversion or alienation of funds shall occur; iii. Periodic compliance affidavits shall be filed at intervals as directed;
iv. No third-party rights shall be created without leave of this Hon’ble Court;
v. The purchaser shall appear before this Hon’ble Court as directed.
50. CONCLUSION
(a) The liberty presently enjoyed by the Petitioner is not antithetical to justice. It is instrumental to restitution.
(b) The Petitioner does not seek unregulated freedom. He seeks structured liberty under judicial oversight to discharge financial obligations.
(c) In these circumstances, continuation of interim bail would advance both Article 21 values and the economic interests of the homebuyers.
(d) Even if the Petitioner is not successful, though the same is not intentional, in depositing the entire amount of ₹9,94,00,357/- still the conduct of the Petitioner is in total compliance of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court. As, the Petitioner is placing on record the details of settled 25 cases/FIR’s amounting to ₹3,49,28,860/-, (other than depositing of money before this Hon’ble Court), settled with 21 allottees in respect of SBI Nagar Project, raising construction at IOB Nagar B Block and G Block to handover the same to 84 allottees, upon completion and also, furnishing the details of the property, purchaser and proposed sale. Though, at the time of arguments on 12.08.2025 the details of 25 criminal cases/FIRs was not available but now the same is being furnished.
The Petitioner as on date, is not seeking regular bail but seeking extension of time which will not cause any great prejudice to the home buyers but, in fact, will help the Petitioner to settle the claims of the home-buyers. In light of the above, it is most respectfully requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to Take this Affidavit of Compliance on record; Extend / confirm the interim bail granted 13 vide Order dated 12.08.2025; Permit sale of Arazi Nos. 401 & 402, Mauza Kesharipur; Permit sale of Bacchawa properties; Direct deposit of sale proceeds with the Registry and reduce the outstanding liability towards the FIR related home buyers by taking into consideration the amount already paid as mentioned in Annexure A-1.
2. Mr. K. Paramashwar, the learned Senior counsel has appeared on behalf of the prospective buyer namely Pratham Vinayak Infra Developers LLP. The client of Mr. Parameshwar is interested to purchase a part of the property `A’ ARAZI NOS. 401 & 402, MAUZA KESHARIPUR admeasuring 1.41 acres. The client of Mr. Parameshwar has offered a price of Rs.20,06,42,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crore Six lakh and Forty Two Thousand only).
3. We are informed that that there is an order of attachment passed by the Uttar Pradesh, Real Estate Regulatory Authority(UPRERA).
4. We would like to hear the Uttar Pradesh, Real Estate Regulatory Authority before we proceed further to grant permission to the petitioner to sell the portion of the land, referred to above, to the client of Mr. Parameshwar.
5. Mr. S.D. Sanjay, the learned Additional Solicitor General is also before us. He made himself clear that there is no attachment on the part of the Enforcement Directorate, insofar as this part of the land is concerned.
6. Besides this, there is a demand draft of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore) drawn in favour of the Registrar, Supreme Court of India being offered today by the petitioner.
7. Let this demand draft be deposited with the Registry of this Court.
8. The Registry shall invest the said amount in an interest- earning FDR from any Nationalized Bank which fetches maximum rate of interest with auto-renewal basis.
9. We permit U.P., RERA to be impleaded as party Respondent No.
10.
10. Cause Title be amended accordingly.
1411. Let notice be issued to the UP RERA.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to serve one set of his entire Paper Book to the learned counsel appearing for the UP, RERA.
13. We want the learned counsel appearing for the UP, RERA to take appropriate instructions insofar as the proposal put forward by the petitioner is concerned.
14. We also permit the proposed purchaser to be impleaded as party Respondent No.11.
15. List the matter for further hearing on 9-4-2026 at 2.00 p.m.
16. Interim bail to continue.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)