9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner was employed with the Religare Group of Companies in various capacities since 2008. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not holding any executive position in RFL after 13.11. 2011. The chargesheet indicates that he had ceased to be a whole time director with effect from 13.11.2011. The petitioner acted as the Group CFO from 06.04.2010 till his resignation on 14.11.2017; thus, it prima facie appears that the petitioner may have supervised certain executive functions relating to RFL but he was not control of its day to day management. The petitioner is a qualified Chartered Accountant and there is no allegation that he had any other stake in REL or RFL except as an employee or an official of the said companies. It prima facie does appear that the petitioner was employed by virtue of his professional qualifications. There is also little material to establish that the remuneration paid to the petitioner was not commensurate with his position in REL. The above is also a vital aspect to be borne in mind while examining whether the petitioner should be granted bail - This Court is not persuaded to accept that the petitioner has any propensity to tamper with the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.2013, but continued to function as the Group CFO till his resignation on 14.11.2017. 5. It is alleged that during his employment with the Religare Group, he was part of various committees including the Risk Management Committee of RFL, which had approved loans to various entities controlled by the Promoters. It is alleged that the petitioner was holding a key managerial position in the Religare Group and was instrumental in siphoning off the money from RFL to entities held by the Promoters in conspiracy with them and various other persons. 6. It is alleged that a forensic audit was conducted by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and it was found that over ₹1,000/- crores had been transferred to RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd. a company held entirely by the Promoters. 7. It is also alleged that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had in the past raised several concerns about the Corporate Loan Book (CLB) of RFL which comprised of unsecured loans granted by RFL to various entities. It is alleged that as per the norms prescribed by the RBI, several loans were required to be classified as non-performing assets (NPAs). However, to avoid such classification, RFL h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned and controlled by the Promoters. 13. Mr Abhimanyu Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not in day to day control and management of RFL. He submitted that the petitioner was a whole time director of RFL but had demitted the office way back in the year 2011. Thereafter, he continued to be a director of RFL in a non-executive capacity. He contended that the petitioner was a member of the loan approval committee which approved loans beyond the specified threshold limit. He did not act alone but acted as a part of the said committee. He submitted that all other members of the said committee have not been charged. Further, he submitted that in addition to the Loan Approval Committee and Risk Management Committee, there was yet another committee Related Party Committee (RPT Committee). As a matter of procedure, RPT Committee, which consisted of well known persons, was also required to examine and approve the Corporate Loan Book (CLB) loans. He referred to the charge sheet and pointed out that there were nineteen loans which have been identified as questionable loans, which the borrowers have defaulted in servicing. He submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committee of which the petitioner was a member. He further stated that the loan documents also indicated that the borrowing entities enjoyed the confidence of the Promoters and that was also a valid consideration for granting loans to those entities as the Promoters also had a significant economic interest in REL and indirectly in RFL. He contended that the petitioner had discharged his duties as assigned with due diligence. He contended that even if any of the decisions made by the petitioner were questioned as erroneous, the same did not establish any culpability on part of the petitioner. 16. Next, Mr Bhandari referred to the allegation that part of his remuneration had been paid by companies that were held almost entirely by the Promoters. He submitted that the petitioner was an employee of REL and was responsible as the Group CFO. The petitioner was receiving part of his salary from FSSL (Finserve Shared Services Limited), which was a company formed to provide certain shared services to the Religare Group. He contended that FSSL was formed pursuant to a service agreement entered into between FSSL and REL. In terms of the agreement FSSL was required to provide support servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 may have been partly used to service loans provided earlier. 21. However, it cannot be disputed that most of the questionable loan transactions had been entered into after 2016. Undisputedly, the petitioner was employed with the Religare Group of Companies in various capacities since 2008. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not holding any executive position in RFL after 13.11. 2011. The chargesheet indicates that he had ceased to be a whole time director with effect from 13.11.2011. The petitioner acted as the Group CFO from 06.04.2010 till his resignation on 14.11.2017; thus, it prima facie appears that the petitioner may have supervised certain executive functions relating to RFL but he was not control of its day to day management. The extent of the involvement of the petitioner in the affairs of RFL is a matter of trial and it is not necessary to examine the same in any great detail at this stage. Suffice it to state that it is not disputed that the petitioner was involved in the affairs of RFL at least as a non-executive director till his resignation on 14.11.2017. 22. The tabular statement at pages 32 to 38 of the chargesheet lists out the ninet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these documents were also available to all members of the Risk Management Committee and the RPT Committee who had approved the said loans. Whilst the petitioner and some other officials of the company have been accused along with the Promoters, other members of the concerned committees that had approved the loans have not been charged. It is not an uncommon practice for lenders to extend loan on the strength of comfort provided by creditworthy and known persons. 27. While serious allegations of conspiracy had been made against the petitioner, there appears to be no substantiated allegation that the petitioner had derived any monetary benefit from the questionable loans that were approved by the petitioner. Mr Mohit Mathur had contended that the petitioner had derived monetary benefit as part of his salaries were paid by FSSL which was an entity owned by the Promoters. He had further stated that there was material to indicate that one of the entities controlled by the Promoters had extended a loan of ₹1.4 crores to the petitioner in the year 2012. 28. Prima facie, there does not appear to be any material which would establish that the petitioner had derived any monetary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he chargesheet against the petitioner has been filed. The petitioner has been in custody since 10.10.2019 for over eight months. 35. This Court is informed that the petitioner was released on interim bail for a period of ten days and there is no allegation that the petitioner had misused his liberty. 36. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner does not present any flight risk. As noticed above, the petitioner is a professional accountant. His qualifications are recognized in India but not in most of other countries. He has been stationed in India and there is no material to indicate that he would present any flight risk. Although it was contended on behalf of the complainant (RFL) that the petitioner has the means to flee the country, there does not appear to be any cogent material to entertain any such apprehension. 37. This Court is also of the view that the alleged role of the petitioner in the alleged offence cannot be equated to that of the Promoters who are also alleged to be the beneficiaries of the funds allegedly siphoned from RFL. 38. Considering the above, this Court considers it apposite to allow the present petition. 39. The petitioner sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
