2023 (6) TMI 1444 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of the second bail application - financial fraud - Parity in granting bail to co-accused - HELD THAT - Undoubtedly, the allegations qua the present applicant are grave in nature, for which he claims to have a defence, as noted in the preceding paragraphs. The veracity of the case of the prosecution as well as the defence will be determined during the course of the trial. The gravity of an offence would be a factor at the time of consideration for grant of bail, but, at the same time, it cannot be the only criteria for denying bail either. The object of bail is neither punitive or preventative and the same is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial. The underlying principle in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that a person, who otherwise has roots in the society and is satisfying the other general conditions for grant of bail should, after completion of investigation, should not be kept in continued judicial incarceration as a matter of punishment, even before the conclusion of trial. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no possible prejudice can be caused to the case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court if the applicant is released on bail with necessary considerations, safeguarding the interests of the prosecution, especially when other co-accused persons have also been granted bail. Admittedly, the investigation in the present case in complete and the main chargesheet, as well as the supplementary chargesheets stand filed before the learned Trial Court. It is also an admitted case that the evidence in the present case, primarily, is documentary in nature; all material documents have been recovered and are in the custody of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that while the applicant was on interim bail, he tried to influence the witnesses, tamper with evidence or misuse his liberty in any manner. In view of the law laid down in the judicial precedents cited hereinabove and in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- alongwith two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the fulfillment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Maintainability of the second bail application.
2. Allegations against the applicant regarding financial fraud.
3. Role of the applicant in the alleged conspiracy.
4. Legal principles governing bail in socio-economic offences.
5. Parity in granting bail to co-accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Second Bail Application:

The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the second bail application. It was argued that the first bail application was dismissed, and no material change in circumstances justified a second application. However, the applicant contended that the supplementary chargesheet revealed new facts, including the transfer of Rs. 34.20 Crores to RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd., which was not considered in the first application. The court found that this amounted to a change in circumstances, making the second application maintainable.

2. Allegations Against the Applicant:

The applicant was accused of conspiring with the promoters of Religare Enterprises Limited (REL) to cause Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) to disburse unsecured loans to shell companies, resulting in a financial fraud of Rs. 2,397 Crores. It was alleged that the applicant received a loan of approximately Rs. 40 Crores from Fern Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., a shell entity, and used his influence to disguise it as a legitimate transaction. The court noted that the veracity of these allegations would be determined during the trial.

3. Role of the Applicant in the Alleged Conspiracy:

The applicant held key managerial positions at REL and was alleged to have facilitated the disbursement of loans without due diligence. He was a member of the Related Party Transaction Committee and was involved in approving loans. The applicant argued that he was removed from his executive positions before most of the loans in question were disbursed and that the loans he approved were either secured or deemed arm's length transactions by the Company Secretary. The court considered these defenses but emphasized that the trial would ultimately determine their validity.

4. Legal Principles Governing Bail in Socio-Economic Offences:

The court referred to precedents, emphasizing that while the gravity of the offence is a factor in bail considerations, it should not be the sole criterion. The object of bail is to ensure the accused's presence at trial, and prolonged pre-trial detention should not be used as punishment. The court noted that the investigation was complete, and the evidence was primarily documentary, reducing the risk of tampering. The applicant had not misused interim bail previously granted, supporting the decision to grant bail.

5. Parity in Granting Bail to Co-Accused:

The court noted that other co-accused had been granted bail, and the applicant's continued detention was not justified. The Supreme Court had dismissed challenges to bail granted to co-accused, indicating no impediment to the trial. The court highlighted the importance of uniformity in judicial decisions and granted bail to the applicant on similar grounds, with necessary conditions to safeguard the prosecution's interests.

Conclusion:

The court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that the trial would determine the merits of the case. The applicant was directed to furnish a personal bond and adhere to conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The decision underscored the principles of bail jurisprudence, balancing the need for liberty with the integrity of the judicial process.