Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Sunil N Godhwani - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Application No. 1100 of 2020
Decided On : 23-07-2020
Rakesh Khanna, Advocate, Rebecca John, Advocate, Rajat Katyal, Advocate, Panna Lal Sharma, Advocate, Mohit Mathur, Advocate, Sandeep Das, Advocate, Vipin Tyagi, Advocate, Aishwarya Singh, Advocate, Sukanya Lal, Advocate, Surbhi Sharma, Advocate
Economic offences involving public money are considered grave, and the courts have to be careful in granting bail in such cases. The accused being a flight risk can influence the decision to grant bail.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under sections 420/409/120B IPC - Companies Act, 1956 - Companies Act, 2013 - [Economic Offences] - [Sections 420/409/120B IPC, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 2013] - The court discussed the complex and layered transactions involving siphoning of public money to the tune of Rs. 2000 crores. The accused was charged with grave offences punishable with life imprisonment. The court held that economic offences involving public money are considered grave and that the courts have to be careful in granting bail in such cases. The court also noted that the accused was a flight risk and was detected attempting to board a flight to London. The petition for bail was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under sections 420/409/120B IPC. The case involved the siphoning of public money worth Rs. 2000 crores through a labyrinth of layered transactions. The petitioner was accused of receiving an amount of Rs. 34 crores from a shell company and approving 9 out of the 19 loans mentioned in the chargesheet. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner controlled and managed the siphoning at each stage and played a crucial role in the affairs of the companies involved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offences involved complex and layered transactions and that economic offences are considered grave, especially when public money is involved. The court also noted that the accused was a flight risk and was detected attempting to board a flight to London. The petition for bail was dismissed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving the siphoning of public money worth Rs. 2000 crores through complex and layered transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that economic offences involving public money are considered grave and that the courts have to be careful in granting bail in such cases. The court also noted that the accused was a flight risk and was detected attempting to board a flight to London. The petition for bail was dismissed.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - Present petition under section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Sunil Godhwani, for grant of bail in pursuance to FIR No.50/2019 registered at Police Station EOW for the offences punishable under sections 420/409/120B IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the present petition, are that the petitioner joined company by the name ''Fortis Financial Services Limited'' on 01.08.2001, a small broking house. The said broking business started to expand in next few years and in the year 2006, the brand was renamed to ''RELIGARE''. Pursuant to renaming of brand, the company went public in the year 2007 under the name ''Religare Enterprises Limited'' (''RFL''). The said company was listed both on NSE and BSE and was held to the extent of 50.93% by the promoters, viz. Malvinder Mohan Singh (MMS) and Shivinder Mohan Singh (SMS); and 49.07% by the public. Business of RFL was diversified into following verticals:
Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) (REL owned 84%) which further owned 100% stake in Religare Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited.
Religare Securities Limited (REL owned 100%) which further owned 100% stake in Religare Commodities Limited and Religare Wealth Management Limited.
Religare Capital Market Limited (REL owned 100%)
Religare Invesco Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd. (REL owned 51%).
RGAM Investment Advisers Pvt. Ltd. (REL owned 100%)
Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd. (REL owned 90%)
AEGON Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (REL owned 44%)
3. Rel and RFL both had a distinct boards comprising of members majorly including relatives and friends (especially father in law of MMS-Sh. Harpal Singh) of the promoters who were always there to watch the interest of the erstwhile promoters MMS & SMS, and MMS/SMS have been stepping in and out of the board of different companies under the brand ''RELIGARE'' as per their wishes and fancies. REL was the holding company of RFL. The promoters MMS/SMS were regularly interacting and directing the management of REL being the majority stake holders. Mr. Hemant Dhingra was of their contact person who was looking after the correspondence and communications and interest of MMS/ SMS. In the year 2010, the Petitioner was promoted as CMD of REL. The business grew multifold and as result, REL became a strong force of almost 8,000 plus employees.
4. It is further stated that petitioner was the CMD and looking after the reins of REL and subsidiaries like Religare Finvest Limited; Religare Securities Limited; Religare Commodities Limited; Religare Wealth Management Limited; Religare Capital Market Limited; Religare Invesco Asset Management Company Pvt. Ltd.; RGAM Investment Advisers Pvt. Ltd.; Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and AEGON Religare Life Insurance Co. Ltd. REL was not only about ICDs and CLB, as is being depicted today, but was one of the premier NBFCs of India and it took much hard work and labour of the respective teams to make it reach such position. The erstwhile promoters MMS/SMS started asking for loans through various channels and entities which were personally guaranteed by them. The promoters were constantly asking for the ICDs and had the ultimate say. Mr. Sachindra Nath was coordinating in that respect. The Petitioner was the Chairman and Managing Director in REL and the loans have been disbursed from RFL which was a separate legal entity and having its own distinct board and personnel. Though RFL was a subsidiary of REL and was having its own loan sanctioning and disbursal matrix, there were procedure and processes put in place for processing, approval and disbursement of loans in the RFT, which was updated from time to time. There was a Credit Committee-I (CC-I) consisting of senior management of RFL like MD & CEO (Mr. Kavi Arora), President & CFO (Mr. Bipin Kabra), President & CRO (Mr. Pankaj Sharma), Treasury Head (Mr. Pawan Seth) and others who used to process and approve the loans upto a certain amo
