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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4309

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Malvinder Mohan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2810 of 2021
Decided On : 02-06-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Arjun Kakkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) with Mr. Kunal Mittal and Mr. Saurabh Tanwar, Advocates. Insp. Sanjeev P.S. EOW.
Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Sunil Dalal, Senior Advocates with Mr. Sandeep Das, Mr. Lakshya Dheer, Ms. Manisha Saroha, Mr. Nikhil Beniwal Mr. Harshit Mahalwal and Mr. Mahabir Singh, Advocates, for R-2.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 409, 120B - Application for bail before the High Court regarding allegations of fraud and financial misconduct in loans disbursed by a financial services company - The applicant sought regular bail after being in custody since October 2019, with a completed investigation and several co-accused having been granted bail. (Paras 4.1, 13, 16)

(B) The court emphasized that the gravity of economic offences should be weighed against the presumption of innocence and the basic tenet that bail should be the rule, not the exception - The applicant's continued detention after investigation completion was deemed unnecessary. (Paras 12.1, 12.2, 20)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an executive of a company, was involved in a financial fraud whereby loans amounting to Rs. 2,397 crores were allegedly misappropriated through connected entities, leading to defaults on repayments. (Paras 2.1, 2.2)

Findings of Court:
The court noted that extensive documentary evidence had been secured and concluded that no prejudice would result from granting bail, given the gravity of charges. (Paras 15, 16)

Issues: The court addressed whether the nature of the economic offences warranted denial of bail despite the completion of the investigation and the absence of current evidence tampering concerns. (Paras 12.1, 13)

Ratio Decidendi: The court recognized that while economic offences are serious, the applicant's long pre-trial detention contradicted the tenet of bail that ensures the liberty of the accused, leading to bail provision with conditions. (Paras 12.1, 13)

Result: Bail granted with specific conditions set forth for the applicant to comply with. (Paras 16, 17)

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J.

1. The present application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 50/2019 dated 27.03.2019, under Sections 420/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') registered at PS Economic Offences Wing.

1.1. By separate judgments of the same date, this Court has disposed of applications seeking regular bail filed on behalf of the other co-accused in the present FIR -Sunil Naraindas Godhwani (BAIL APPLN. 1005/2022), Kavi Arora (BAIL APPLN. 1059/2022) and Rajender Aggarwal (BAIL APPLN. 1384/2021).

Factual Background

2. The FIR in the present case was registered upon a complaint received from Mr. Manpreet Singh Suri, Authorized Representative of Religare Finvest Limited (`RFL') alleging a financial fraud perpetrated by the promoters of Religare Enterprises Limited (`REL') -Shivinder Mohan Singh and Malvinder Mohan Singh (applicant herein), the then Chairman-cum-Managing Director - Sunil Godhwani and Narendra Kumar Ghoushal.

2.1. RFL is a company registered with the Reserve Bank of India (`RBI') and is licensed to undertake the business of financial services as a Non-Banking Financial Company (`NBFC'). It operates as an NBFC focused on financing small and medium enterprises (`SME') and extends SME working capital loans, secure SME business expansions, loans, short term trade finance and other loans to various entities. The complainant company is a subsidiary of REL which is a public company listed on the stock exchange. The majority shareholding of REL was owned by the applicant and Shivinder Mohan Singh till June, 2017, i.e., till when they were classified as promoters of REL. Thereafter, till February 2018, they remained on the Board of Directors of REL. Effectively, since Shivinder Mohan Singh and the applicant had control over REL, they also had control over its subsidiary -RFL, the complainant company. Shivinder Mohan Singh held the position of Non- Executive Director of REL from 13.12.2004 till 06.04.2010 and thereafter, he held the position of Non-Executive Director and Vice- Chairman of REL from 29.07.2016 till 14.02.2018. Malvinder Mohan Singh, the applicant held the position of Non-Executive Chairman of REL from 13.12.2004 till 06.04.2010 and thereafter, from 29.07.2016 till 14.02.2018.

2.2. The shareholding and Board of REL was reconstituted in the year 2018 after Shivinder Mohan Singh and the applicant lost control pursuant to invocation of shares pledged by them with various banks in February 2018. After the said reconstitution, the new management conducted internal enquiries and discovered willful defaults on significant unsecured loans, defined for internal purposes as the Corporate Loan Book (`CLB'), by borrower entities, either related, controlled or associated with the promoters, all of who had been provided the subject loans from RFL on a non-arms' length basis. The primary allegation against the applicant was that he, in conspiracy with Shivinder Mohan Singh and Sunil Godhwani caused RFL to give unsecured loans to the tune of Rs. 2,397 Crores, on a non-arms' length basis and without proper documentation, to shell companies related to them and these entities, willfully defaulted in making the repayments. As on the date of the FIR, i.e., 27.03.2019, nineteen such entities were identified which had defaulted on their borrowings from RFL.

2.3. Enquiries further brought to light that the Securities Exchange Board of India (`SEBI') and the Serious Fraud Investigations Office (`SFIO') were already investigating the transactions involving REL and related entities. A review of the records revealed that the RBI had, from time to time, expressed concerns about the CLB portfolio of RFL. However, these concerns were allegedly never addressed by the promoters. The RBI had raised concerns about the promoters disbursing high value unsecured loans to entities with no financial standing. In its inspection report dated 06.01.2012, the RBI has obs

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