The judgment underscores the gravity of economic offences involving public money and the potential for accused individuals to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The Petitioner is humbly petitioning before this Court under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking the relief of regular bail, having been arrested on 10.10.2019 during the course of investigation in F.I.R. bearing no. 50/2019, dated 27.03.2019, registered by the Economic Offence Wing, Delhi Police, (hereinafter referred to as the ''Respondent''), under Sections 409/420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The said investigation culminating in chargesheet dated 06.01.2020, wherein the Petitioner was arraigned as Accused No. 4 under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Mr.Puneet Bali, learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was not named as an accused in the said F.I.R. and the ensuing chargesheet, which was filed as far back as on 06.01.2020, thereby marking conclusion of investigation by the Respondent against the Petitioner, fails to bring forth any material to implicate the Petitioner in the criminal proceedings emanating out of the said F.I.R., much less be able to justify the detention of the Petitioner in custody for more than 8 months, that too even after conclusion of investigation in the said proceedings.

3. Further submitted that a co-accused Anil Saxena has already been granted regular bail by the Court vide order dated 17.06.2020. From a bare perusal of the chargesheet, it becomes crystal clear that Anil Saxena and the petitioner have been attributed similar roles by the investigating agency. Anil Saxena was the group Chief Financial Officer and a member of the same Risk Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as "RMC")/Loan Investment and Borrowing Committee (hereinafter referred to as "LIABC") as the petitioner, which approved the loans, till his resignation on 14.11.2017. In addition to this, as per the Investigation Report dated 27.09.2018 prepared by AZB & Partners (Advocates and Solicitors) (hereinafter referred to as "AZB Report"), Anil Saxena was issuing direct instructions for disbursement of loans. In fact, the case of the petitioner is on a far better footing, since Anil Saxena was part of the parent company Religare Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as "REL") management team, while the petitioner was part of the subsidiary Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter referred to as "RFL") team. Further, whereas there are no allegations whatsoever, against petitioner that he received even a single penny out of the loan amount siphoned off by the promoters, on the other hand there are allegations against Anil Saxena that he was also granted a loan of Rs.1,40,00,000/- (one crore and forty lacs) by one of entities owned and controlled by the promoters.

4. Mr.Bali submitted that the mandate given to the petitioner on his joining RFL was to set up a retail Small and Medium Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "SME") lending business which does not have dependence on performance of Capital Markets. The Petitioner was handling Consumer Finance which later got rechristened to SME Lending Business, being successfully created so by the Petitioner. The performance evaluation of Petitioner was always limited to SME business throughout his employment at RFL. Further, even after becoming the MD and CEO of the company, the Petitioner was looking after only the SME side of business without any control on the functioning ICD/CLB and Loan Against Shares making the Petitioner merely a figurative MD of RFL. SME lending business/ loans in the present case means secured or unsecured long term loans given to small and medium scale entities. On the other hand in the present case InterCorporate Deposits (hereinafter referred to as "ICD") / Corporate Loan Book (hereinafter referred to as "CLB") were short term unsecured loans given to bigger entities and companies. While RFL management team was managing SME lending business, REL team used to manage I