2022 (5) TMI 1542 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - willful defaulted in repayments and caused wrongful loss to RFL to the huge money - HELD THAT - A perusal of record shows that chargesheet has already been filed, all materials have been collected by the investigating authorities and the evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is neither a flight risk, nor can there be any propensity on his part to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness inasmuch as the entire domain of evidence is documentary in nature, which exists as it is from the year 2008 onwards, unhindered, and un-tampered. The applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and has clean antecedents. He has been languishing in jail since 8th December 2021. He has been languishing in jail since 8th December 2021. Considering the chargesheet, first supplementary chargesheet and second supplementary chargesheet as well as the fact that other co-accused persons having been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench which stand confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; and the facts and circumstances and discussion as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the instant bail application seeking regular bail. Applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Applicant’s involvement and role in the alleged financial misconduct.
3. Grounds for opposing the bail by the State.
4. Consideration of co-accused being granted bail.
5. Evaluation of the applicant’s risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.
6. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Bail Application:
The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking regular bail for the applicant in FIR No. 50/2019 registered at Police Station EOW Mandir Marg for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Applicant’s Involvement and Role:
The FIR was lodged by Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) against certain individuals for disbursing loans to entities without financial standing, causing a wrongful loss to RFL. The applicant, who was the Group CFO of RFL, was alleged to have been involved in the financial misconduct. However, the applicant contended that the alleged round-tripping of loans occurred between 2008 and 2016, during which he was not associated with RFL. He joined RFL on 14th November 2017 and resigned on 14th November 2018. The applicant argued that he worked under the Board's directions and was not involved in the management of RFL.

3. Grounds for Opposing the Bail by the State:
The State opposed the bail, alleging that the applicant played a specific role in releasing property documents without authorization, converting secured loans into unsecured loans, and conspiring with the main accused to defraud RFL. The State argued that the applicant’s release could lead to absconding, influencing witnesses, and tampering with evidence.

4. Consideration of Co-Accused Being Granted Bail:
The applicant's counsel highlighted that co-accused Maninder Singh and Anil Saxena were granted bail by the High Court, and the Supreme Court upheld these orders. The applicant argued that his case was on a lower pedestal compared to the co-accused who were already enlarged on bail.

5. Evaluation of the Applicant’s Risk:
The Court considered factors such as the nature of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the evidence being documentary, and the applicant's clean antecedents. It was noted that the applicant had been in custody since 8th December 2021, and there was no evidence of tampering or influencing witnesses.

6. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The Court directed that the applicant be released on bail with conditions including:
- Furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties.
- Not leaving India without prior permission.
- Surrendering his passport.
- Appearing before the Court as required.
- Not making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case.
- Providing and keeping his mobile number operational.
- Committing no offence during the bail period.
- Intimating any change of residential address or mobile number to the Court.

Conclusion:
The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail under specified conditions. The judgment emphasized that the observations made were for the purpose of deciding the bail application and should not influence the trial proceedings.