Page 57 - History of Canopy Classic Buyers

Crl.Misc.3834/2018
3

Cr.P.C., is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is a
bar under Section 18(2) of KPIDFE Act. The complainant in his

complaint has stated that petitioners and others have formed a

f ctitious f rm under the name and style “Canopy Estates Private
Limited” and have lured by improperly of ering that they would

allot apartments with world class amenities and induced the

general public to part with their hard earned money in the form
of deposits. As per the inducement of the petitioners, the

complainant and other general public have invested huge sum

of several crores of rupees on the assurance and promise that
their investment would be returned with assured promises. The

petitioners and their associates have not only failed to fulf ll
their promises but also failed to provide apartments as

promised by them. On further verif cation, it was found that

they have no proper marketable title over the property in which
the apartment being constructed. The investigation is at crucial

stage and at this stage if the petitioners are granted bail as
prayed by them, the investigation will badly suf er and in the

result the public cause will suf er, which cannot be compensated

later on. The of ences registered against the petitioners are
economic of ences and in view of the economic of ences the

burden of proving their innocence lies on them. The economic

of ence poses a serious threat to the national economy and
national interest and committed with cool calculations and

deliberate designs with the motive of personal gain regardless

of the consequences to the society. With this, the Special Public
Prosecutor prayed to reject the bail petition.

4) Heard the arguments of the learned advocate

appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Public

http://canopyclassicbuyers.in/ Page 57 of 101