Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
In The Matter Of: Francis Daniel Lee – Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
BAIL APPLN. 2453, 2454 of 2021 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 928, 929 of 2021, CRL.M.A. 20202, 21042, 20201 of 2021, 51 of 2022
Decided on : 21-02-2022
Criminal Procedure code, 1973 - Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Petitioner submits that FIRs does not name Petitioner - He states that when Petitioner’s relationship with REL was terminated, he had been staying at his hometown Ranchi with his family and had done no work - He submits that Petitioner had been inducted into Board of REL as a representative of M/s Loancare Servicing Solutions in view of pending litigations between REL/RFL and other corporate entities, and his only endeavour was to streamline their affairs - Petitioner intends to join investigation and that this investigation is based on documents only and that there is no need for custodial interrogation of Petitioner and he should be granted anticipatory bail in both FIRs - APP submits that Petitioner was at helm of affairs of Complainant Company and was instrumental in causing wrongful loss to Complainant Company to tune of Rs. 3.39 crores - Offences of which Petitioner has been accused are grave in nature and are punishable with a sentence of life imprisonment - He states that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases of siphoning off of public money and that investigation is still in its nascent stage - He opposes bail applications of Petitioner and states that custodial interrogation is required to unearth underlying conspiracy.
Finding of the Court :
There is weight in submission of learned APP that custodial interrogation of Petitioner is required to not only recover large amounts of money that have been cheated from Complainant Company, but to also shed light to roles of alleged co-conspirators in instant matter - Court must also keep in mind that Petitioner is main accused in instant FIRs and there is a strong likelihood of him evading arrest and not cooperating in investigation, as has been exhibited in past - It must also be borne in mind that investigation is pending and instant matter pertains to siphoning off of large amounts of public money which is an offence of a grave nature - Power to grant anticipatory bail in economic offences must be exercised sparingly as these offences stand on a different footing due their effect on economic fabric of society - Granting anticipatory at this juncture may not only have a negative impact on investigation in case, but may also affect faith that is reposed in criminal justice system
Result: Bail applications dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. These applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 63/2020 dated 01.07.2020 registered at Police Station EOW under Sections 409/420/468/471/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC”) and FIR No. 82/2020 dated 06.08.2020 registered at Police Station EOW under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to BAIL APPLN. 2453/2021 are as follows:
b) It is stated that a corporate fraud was discovered when the Board of Directors at REL was reconstituted after the decline of promoters’ shareholding in REL and the exit of Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, and they found REL and its subsidiaries to be in a terrible financial condition, and that there was widespread illegal siphoning off of funds from REL and RFL. Multiple complaints were filed pertaining to this, and this led to FIR No. 50/2019 being registered.
c) It is stated that Mr. Francis Daniel Lee, the Petitioner herein, was a Director on the Board of REL from 17.11.2017 to 13.02.2018 and that he worked in connivance with Mohnish Mukkar to cause wrongful loss to REL and RFL. During internal inquiries of the new management at RFL, discrepancies were found in the Goods and Sales Tax (GST) credit on its account for invoices raised by KE Valuation Services, a brand name of Kalpana Export.
d) It is stated that RFL, in a letter dated 01.05.2018, had stated that it had received invoices from Kalpana Export against a certain product and that the GST credit on its ISD registration with respect to the invoices was Rs. 77,436.81/- against the GST charged on such invoices aggregating to Rs. 51/75/360/- which would lead to a shortfall on the GST credit for RFL and result in a cash outflow. On seeking a clarification regarding the types of services offered by Kalpana Export, RFL received an email on 31.05.2018 stating that Kalpana Export engaged in trading of diamonds and had supplied rough diamonds to RFL on 16.12.2017 worth Rs. 3,10,52,160/-, and that they deposited an amount of Rs. 77,436.81/- towards IGST @ 0.25% as applicable.
e) It is stated that RFL has never ordered any rough diamonds and that the invoice sent by Kalpana Export appears to be signed by a person named “P Sharma’, allegedly a director of RFL, but his signature does not match that of any director at RFL. After further inquiries, an engagement letter was recovered dated 22.08.2017 shared by KE Valuation Services for certain services to be rendered by them in real estate to RFL, but the terms and scope of the work mentioned were vague and obscure, and it is stated that this was a mere ruse to extract money out of RFL.
f) It is stated that the emails indicate that the Petitioner herein urgently sought approval to process payments to KE Valuation Services/Kalpana Export, and that this payment was approved by three members of the Group Monitoring and Auditing Council (GMA) which included one Rajesh Sharma, one Gurvinder Singh Juneja and one Pawan Seth, along with the approval of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that all the approvals were secured at the behest of the Petitioner herein who has never held any management position in RFL and has had no authority to permit any payment on behalf of RFL, and that these acts reveal a breach of trust by the Petitioner herein who was bestowed with the responsibility of an Executive Director of REL and owed a fiduciary duty to
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
Point of law: While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situat....
The judgment establishes that the grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences is an extraordinary remedy and should be considered only in exceptional cases, balancing the rights of the accused wi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court considered the civil nature of the dispute, the filing of a company petition, and the absence of misuse of anticipatory bail in gran....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
