Windsor Hill Township Fraud: MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Project Executor, Says Economic Offences Require Cautious Approach

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (December 16) dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Ankit Ranjan, who is accused of deliberately defrauding the parent company of 'Windsor Hill' township project.The bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed;"This Court also finds substance in the submission of the prosecution that the applicant, acting in concert with the co-accused persons, facilitated the undervalued sale of flats in favour of relatives, shell entities, and associated firms, followed by their prompt resale at escalated prices, with the surplus consideration being deliberately withheld from the account of the complainant company. The manner, frequency, and timing of these transactions, coupled with the allegation of creation of multiple shell companies and operation of bank accounts in the names of deceased relatives, prima facie demonstrate a deliberate design to defraud the company and to camouflage the illicit flow of funds". A case was registered in the Police Station based on the complaint filed by Rajeev Shrivastava, the Director of Esotech CP Infrastructure alleging that the company launched a residential township project titled' Windsor Hill' during which large scale financial irregularities occurred. It was alleged that the co-accused Manoj Shrivastava and PK Shrivastava entrusted with the execution of the project, along with their associates, sold flats, villas, and plots but failed to deposit the proceeds with the company. Through forgery and deceit, the accused allegedly caused a loss of nearly ₹60 crores to the company. The counsel for the applicant approached the High Court contending that he was neither a director nor an office bearer of the company. Additionally, he had no role in the management, sales or financial transactions of the Windsor Hill Project. Further, the counsel contended that his name was for recorded in the original complaint and his implication was based on vague and omnibus allegations. The counsel for the State contended that the applicant actively participated in flotaing several fake and shell companies with the intention to defraud the parent company. He along with others floated firms such as Ecotech Developers, Vistar Developers, Chiranjivi Developers, Gayatri Developers, Infinity-Tech Developers, Shivam Developers, Sidharth Developers, Sundaram Developers, Suryavanshi Developers, and Surya-Tech Developers, with their relatives shown as partners.The State argued that a total of 36 flats were sold either in the names of relatives or in the names of these fake companies, and all registries were executed within a span of three to four days without depositing the sale consideration in the company's account. It is further alleged that bank accounts opened in the names of deceased relatives, including the father and father-in-law of the co- accused, who had expired in the years 2012 and 2008 respectively, were still being operated by the applicant and other co-accused persons by forging their signatures. The court noted that the allegations levelled against the applicant pertained to serious and grave economic offences involving systematic misappropriation of huge public money of ₹60 crores. The court noted, "The material collected during the course of investigation, particularly the bank statements seized by the police, prima facie disclose a consistent and unexplained pattern of large-scale financial transactions routed through the applicant and co-accused's bank account, which are wholly disproportionate to their admitted source of income". It further observed;"The repeated deposits of substantial amounts followed by their immediate transfer to entities and firms connected with the co-accused persons clearly indicate the existence of a well-orchestrated mechanism of fund diversion, layering, and siphoning, which cannot be brushed aside at this stage as mere coincidental or innocuous transactions". Further, the bench opined that granting bail to applicant may not only impede the fair and effective completion of investigation but may also provide an opportunity to influence witnesses, tamper with documentary evidence or obstruct the tracing of diverted funds. It observed; "in view of the prima facie material suggesting criminal intent, pre-meditated conspiracy, and a systematic siphoning of funds through fraudulent means, which transcend the realm of a mere contractual or commercial dispute". Thus, the bench dismissed the bail application. Case Title: Ankit Ranjan v State of Madhya Pradesh [MCRC-54935-2025]For Applicant: Advocate Raj Kumar ShrivastavaFor State: Public Prosecutor Mohit Shivhare Click here to read/download the Order

Windsor Hill Township Fraud: MP High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Project Executor, Says Economic Offences Require Cautious Approach

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags