9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court also stood dismissed and thereupon, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is not a simple case where the petitioner was charged only for nonrecovery of certain outstanding amounts from the debtors, but, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged into cheating of Banks and siphoning off the public money using puppet Companies, writing off the stocks, inventories and receivables and thereby, he is facing serious economic offences and fraud of a great magnitude. 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 witnesses being influenced by him. On the aspect of long incarceration and application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail in Spl.C.C.No.01 of 2023 on the file of the XV Additional City Civil Court, Chennai / Special Court for trial of SFIO Cases, A6, who suffers incarceration from 13.7.2022, has come up with the present petition. 2. The factual background of the case, as could be elicited from from the materials available, is as under:- i) Surana Group of Companies consisting of three Companies viz., Surana Industries Limited (SIL), Surana Corporation Limited (SCL) and Surana Power Limited (SPL) had borrowed Rs. 1000 crores of money from various banks and later, they went on liquidation under IBC having been declared as NPA. While their total liability to the banks being Rs. 10238/- crores, the available assets of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad operated BELL and had acquired the wind mills of SIL & SCL by proxy utilizing the bank borrowings siphoned off from SIL & SCL. This is a classic case of how a promoter, who had defaulted in bank borrowing, acquires the same asset by proxy using the siphoned off funds of banks. f) Subsequently, the petitioner, in connivance with his father Dinesh Chand Surana, orchestrated removal of steel stock from the books of SIL by following various dubious accounting practices. They had provisioned/ written off steel from the books of SIL to the extent of Rs. 191.31 Crores between F.Y. 2015-16 to 2017-18. g) The petitioner had connived with Dinesh Chand Surana & Deepak Kothari had utilized corporate entities of 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 matern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of by way of long incarceration as under trial prisoner. iv) A co-accused viz., A30-Devarajan had been granted bail by the order of this court dated 11.10.2022 in Crl.O.P.No.22595 of 2022 and thus, denial of bail to the petitioner is against the established legal principle of parity. v) Though the petitioner is alleged to have played a key role in the offences, the petitioner was never in control of the overall affairs of either SIL or SPL. His role with respect to SPL was restricted to monitoring of projects and he was never in charge of the financial transactions of either SIL or SPL. vi) The investigation having been concluded, there is no question of possibility of the petitioner influencing the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged only for nonrecovery of certain outstanding amounts from the debtors, but, the petitioner is alleged to have indulged into cheating of Banks and siphoning off the public money using puppet Companies, writing off the stocks, inventories and receivables and thereby, he is facing serious economic offences and fraud of a great magnitude. 9. In the earlier petitions moved by the petitioner, in Crl.O.P.No.21728 of 2022, Crl.O.P.No.28591 of 2022 and Crl.O.P.No.3408 of 2023, this court had elaborately dealt with the gravity of offence alleged against the petitioner and non compliance of the twin conditions stipulated under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act. In such circumstances, it is suffice to consider 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
