2021 (5) TMI 1064 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular bail - putting the company in poor financial condition by disbursing loans to entities having no financial standings - default in repayment o loans - shell companies/entities were controlled by petitioner or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner is not a beneficiary to even a single penny and whatever was done appears to be at the instance of beneficiaries Shivinder Mohan Singh and Malvinder Mohan Singh, who have since been granted bail. Though it is alleged the orders of grant of their bails have been stayed but admitted their bails are not cancelled as yet. It is also the case of the petitioner though total amount alleged is Rs. 2397 crores, but such figure pertains to the total disbursal of the loan by RFL and not the outstanding to RFL. The Enforcement Directorate in the chargesheet dated 10.01.2020 has rather concluded only Rs. 300 crores out of Rs. 2397 crores is outstanding. Admittedly the investigating authority did not arrest members of other instrumental committees viz. Related Party Transaction Committee, which committee used to recommend the sanctioning of loan-such members are Rashi Dhir, Avinash Chander Mahajan, Harpal Singh, Monish K Dutt, Sunil Kumar Garg and Pankaj Sharma. The petitioner herein was an employee; not a beneficiary to a single penny; the main beneficiaries Shivinder Mohan Singh and Narender Kumar Ghoshal have since been granted regular bail by the learned Trial Court; such bails have not been cancelled as yet; the properties worth Rs. 300 crores stood attached; there being no allegation against him of tempering of evidence or influencing of witnesses; the perusal of chargesheet shows the entire trail of money stood investigated; he is not named in FIR or in the first chargesheet; no new material brought on record by the supplementary chargesheet; custodial interrogation never sought of this applicant by the authorities and since the investigation qua this applicant is complete and he being no more required for the purpose of investigation hence, considering above, there is no impediment to grant him bail. The applicant is hereby granted bail on his executing a personal bond of Rs. 1.00 lac with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Duty MM, subject to conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Regular bail application in a case involving allegations of financial irregularities and conspiracy leading to a significant loss to a company.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving FIR No. 50/2019 under Section 409/420/120B IPC, where the complaint alleged that key individuals had caused a substantial financial loss to a company by disbursing loans to entities with no financial standing. The Reserve Bank of India highlighted discrepancies, indicating the misuse of funds and interlinkages between borrowers related to the company. The accused, including the petitioner, were arrested after investigations and a charge sheet was filed against them.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as a Chief Business Officer, was instrumental in a conspiracy to siphon off a significant amount of money from the company. The petitioner was accused of approving loans to entities linked to the promoters, despite their lack of creditworthiness, resulting in misappropriation of funds. It was claimed that the petitioner, with his long association with the promoters, facilitated the diversion of funds, causing a direct loss to shareholders.

The petitioner's involvement in sanctioning and disbursing loans to various entities, along with his close association with the promoters, raised suspicions of his complicity in the financial irregularities. The prosecution argued that the petitioner's actions, including approving loans without proper documentation and diverting funds to related parties, contributed to the wrongful loss suffered by the company.

Despite the petitioner's claims of not being a beneficiary of the misappropriated funds and having no flight risk, the prosecution contended that his role in the financial transactions and his knowledge of the entities' lack of creditworthiness made him a key figure in the alleged conspiracy. The investigating authority's decision to arrest the petitioner was questioned, especially considering the lack of new material against him in the supplementary charge sheet.

The court, considering various factors including the absence of evidence linking the petitioner directly to the misappropriation of funds, granted him bail on certain conditions. The court directed the petitioner not to leave the jurisdiction of Delhi without permission, refrain from contacting employees of related companies, and ensure his availability for all legal proceedings. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and did not imply any judgment on the pending trial's merits.