9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies had been valued under IBC between Rs. 215 crores to 645 crores, sufficient to meet only 2 to 6% of the total liabilities of the group of companies and investigation revealed various counts of siphoning of funds, diversion of funds and creation of assets utilizing the funds siphoned out. ii) The petitioner was appointed as Vice President (Projects) in Surana Power Limited (SPL) in the meeting of Board of Directors dated 28.12.2008 to head certain projects. He was a part of the management committee, steering committee of SPL and had attended most of the meetings of the Board of Directors of SPL. During his tenure as Group CEO of SIL and SPL, he had written off Rs. 86.24 crores in connivance with his father. iii) Similarly, the investigation had revealed that the petitioner, in connivance with his father and other accused, had played key role in various activities relating to siphoning of public money obtained as loans from various banks by fraudulently showing the strength of the business with boosted/inflated figures. iv) Specific allegations against the petitioner are as under:- a) The petitioner (A6), in connivance with his father Dinesh Chand Surana (A4), had ut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SAYSO & TEPL, to siphon off Rs. 58.8 Crores to Ramlal Jain, Proprietor of Kawarlal & Co., as property advances which is nothing, but funds borrowed by SIL & SCL from banks. The petitioner had connived with Dinesh Chand Surana & Deepak Kothari and Devarajan, Director of SCL had orchestrated siphoning of funds of SCL by transferring funds out to SAYSO of Rs. 108.37 crores. v) The petitioner along with his father Dinesh Chand Surana was operating SAYSO & 'TEPL using his maternal uncle, Deepak Kothari by making his employees and poor relatives as Directors in the puppet Companies and contracts were entered with puppet companies and monies were rotated among the Companies and puppet Companies. vi) The petitioner, in connivance with his father Dinesh Chand Surana, had also siphoned out funds (a) Rs. 8.25 Crores to the bank accounts of Dinesh Chand Surana; (b) Rs. 2 Crores to Sakthi GOC through BELL, which was partly repaid after the commencement of investigation. Dinesh Chand Surana and the petitioner had also conceived an implemented manner utilizing employees to transfer siphoned out bank borrowings from BELL to Radha GOC and RAI Ispat. Dinesh Chand Surana and the petitioner h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation to deny bail to the petitioner. vii) The decision of the Apex Court in V.Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 739) granting liberty to the petitioner on the ground of long incarceration squarely applies to the present case. viii) The petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is not likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. He is ready and willing to abide by any stringent conditions and thereby, the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail. 4. Per contra, the submissions made by Mr. B. Mohan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for SFIO are as under:- i) The petitioner, arrayed as A6 in the case, had played an active and managerial role in the offences by making misrepresentation to the banks in obtaining loans and siphoning the funds using puppet companies and by writing off the stocks and inventories. ii) The petitioner, being alleged with commission of an offence punishable under Section 447 of the Companies Act, cannot be granted bail without there being satisfaction of the twin conditions imposed under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. iii) The presence of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der as to whether there is any change of circumstances as on date for grant of bail to the petitioner at this stage. The circumstances, rather change of circumstances, projected by the petitioner warranting consideration of this court to grant bail to the petitioner are that (i) completion of investigation; (ii) long incarceration of the petitioner viz. for almost 30 months; and (iii) grant of bail to a co-accused viz., A30-Devarajan by this court on 11.10.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2022. 10. On the above aspects, it has been brought to the notice of this court that though investigation has been completed in the case, the presence of the petitioner is very much required at the stage of framing of charges and the evidence like statements given by witnesses to the SFIO and the communication addressed by the petitioner to the Banks would clinchingly establish the role played by the petitioner and the control he has over the witnesses and thus the petitioner has not complied with the twin conditions stipulated under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013 and in the event of grant of bail to the petitioner, there is every possibility for the evidence being tampered and the wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
