No Investigation Stay In Alleged Cheating Case Against SpiceJet's Ajay Singh: Delhi High Court
The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 29.
The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no stay of investigation in an alleged cheating case against SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh concerning the transfer of shares of the airline to certain individuals.
The clarification came on an order passed by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta on Singh's anticipatory bail application in the matter.
The court, which had earlier granted interim protection from arrest to the businessman stated in its order dated September 8, “As prayed by learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, it is clarified that there is no stay of investigation.”
The court listed the matter for further hearing on November 29 and said the interim order shall continue to remain in operation in the meantime.
“List on November 29, 2022. Interim orders to continue,” it said.
In the present case, which pertains to two similar FIRs, a Delhi businessman and his family members have alleged that there was a share-purchase agreement between him and the accused and they paid Rs 10 lakh for 10 lakh shares of SpiceJet.
These shares, however, were not transferred leading to the filing of the police complaint against Singh.
The complainant has also claimed that the accused 'dishonestly' handed over outdated and invalid delivery instruction slip to him.
On April 7, the court had ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against Ajay Singh while directing him to join the investigation and keep the disputed shares secured and give an undertaking in this regard to the investigating agency.
The court had opined that the dispute between the parties appeared to be of a civil nature and it “cannot be ignored that the petitioner is a Chairman and Managing Director of SpiceJet Airlines and has deep social roots in the society."
Seeking anticipatory bail, Singh – represented by senior advocates Vikas Pahwa and Siddharth Aggarwal -- has submitted that ex-facie no offence was made out against him and the criminal case was an abuse of the criminal machinery.