SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Signatory - Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India Through Its Managing Director/chairman & Ors. - Respondents
Bail Application No. 679 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2022

Advocates appeared:
Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Advocate, Saud Khan, Advocate, Prabhav Ralle, Advocate, Kartik Venu, Advocate, Avi Singh, Advocate, Karan Dhalla, Advocate, Mizba Dhebar, Advocate, Mohit Mathur, Advocate, Sandeep D. Das, Advocate, Shashwat Sarin, Advocate, Harsh Gautam, Advocate

The judgment emphasizes the importance of balancing personal liberty with the security of the community and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Headnote:

Bail Application - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409/420/120B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439

Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought regular bail in a case involving allegations of financial irregularities and wrongful loss to a company. The applicant argued that he was not involved in the alleged activities and that the investigation did not implicate him. The state opposed the bail application, alleging the applicant's involvement in fraudulent activities.

Finding of the Court:

The court considered the severity of the accusations, the nature of the evidence, and the bail granted to co-accused individuals. It found that the evidence against the applicant was documentary in nature and that there was no risk of flight or tampering with evidence. The court granted the bail application, imposing specific conditions on the applicant.

Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the severity of the accusations and the nature of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the personal liberty of the accused with the security of the community, considering the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It also considered the nature of the evidence, the likelihood of the applicant absconding, and the bail granted to co-accused individuals.

Final Decision: The court granted the bail application, directing the applicant to furnish a personal bond and imposing specific conditions to ensure his compliance.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. - The instant bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in FIR bearing No. 50/2019 registered at Police Station EOW Mandir Marg for offences punishable under Sections 409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Status report filed by the State is taken on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was lodged by M/s. Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter 'RFL' - New Management) with Police Station EOW Mandir Marg against Malvinder Mohan Singh, Shivinder Mohan Singh, the then Promoters/Directors, Sunil Godhwani, the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director and N.K. Ghoshal. It is alleged that the aforesaid persons having absolute control on REL, and its subsidiaries have put 'RFL' in poor financial condition by disbursing loans to entities, having no financial standings. These entities willfully defaulted in repayments and caused wrongful loss to 'RFL' to the huge money. The Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter 'RBI') has pointed out some discrepancies in its analysis viz. the top borrowers of 'RFL', under Corporate Loan Book (CLB) portfolio were related entities; there was inter linkage between the borrowers as funds were routed from one borrower to another; and the loan amounts ultimately were coming to the group companies of 'RFL'.

4. Mr. Tanveer ahmed Mir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint and crystallized in the charge-sheet, the promoter-directors were involved in round tripping of some loans right from the year 2008 onwards and it is a matter of admitted position that the aforesaid round tripping predominantly took place between the period from 2008 to 2016, during which period the applicant was neither a part of 'REL' nor a part of 'RFL'. It is further submitted that 'RFL' was a 100% subsidiary of 'REL' and therefore, a common balance sheet was being filed. The applicant throughout his limited tenure as Group CFO of 'RFL', worked strictly under the guidance and directions of the Board of Directors. It is vehemently submitted that the applicant at no point of time held a key role so far as management of affairs of 'REL' or 'RFL' is concerned. The applicant sought to resign from RFL/REL on 14th November 2018 and the resignation attained force on 11th March 2019 after obtaining the requisite clearances from the RBI.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that during the course of further investigation one Maninder Singh who was working as Chief Business Officer of 'REL' as well as held vital post in 'RFL', was arrested by the investigating authorities on 27th October 2020 on the allegation that he had aided and abetted and being an accessory/criminal conspirator with the main beneficiaries i.e. Shivinder Mohan Singh and Malvinder Mohan Singh and thereby had caused loss of more than Rs. 1500 Crores to 'RFL'. The allegation against him was that he was a member of Risk Management Committee (hereinafter 'RMC') and about 13 dubious loans were granted to related parties without any documentation/collateral securities, whereas the co-accused Maninder Singh had a huge responsibility in refusing to permit/sanction or support the grant of such loans, being a member of the 'RMC'.

6. The investigating agencies conducted detailed investigation and consequently filed a chargesheet dated 6th January 2020, before the CMM, Saket, District Court, New Delhi. It was submitted that on account of fact that no evidence surfaced to the detriment of the applicant during the aforesaid investigation as comprehensively conducted by Economic Offences Wing (hereinafter 'EOW'), therefore, the applicant was neither arraigned nor charge sheeted by the respondent.

7. The supplementary chargesheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. was filed by the Investigating authorities qua the co-accused Maninder Singh on 20th January 2021.

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top