Court denies interim bail citing non-compliance with guidelines; petitioner advised to appeal to Committee

The court declined the petitioner's application for interim bail/parole, stating that it did not align with the High Powered Committee's guidelines. The court noted the petitioner's stable health condition but allowed the petitioner to seek redressal by making a representation to the Committee.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.PC for urgent relief.
2. Allegations of financial misconduct and money laundering.
3. Overcrowding in prisons due to COVID-19 and the Supreme Court's directives.
4. Petitioner's health concerns.
5. High Powered Committee's guidelines on interim bail.
6. State's opposition to interim bail.
7. Previous court rulings on similar cases.
8. High Powered Committee's criteria for bail exclusion.
9. Supreme Court's direction on representation to High Powered Committee.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.PC for urgent relief:
The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Cr.PC, 1973, seeking urgent relief to stay the minutes of the High Powered Committee meeting held on 28.03.2020 and to release the petitioner on bail/parole.

2. Allegations of financial misconduct and money laundering:
The FIR No.50/2019 alleges that the petitioner, along with co-conspirators, played a significant role in the management of Religare Finvest Limited (RFL), forging documents to secure high-value loans to shell companies, resulting in a principal amount of Rs. 2397 crores and Rs. 415 crores as interest being siphoned off. The Directorate of Enforcement filed a complaint under Sections 44/45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging money laundering.

3. Overcrowding in prisons due to COVID-19 and the Supreme Court's directives:
The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020 directed states to form High Powered Committees to determine which prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail to control the spread of COVID-19 in overcrowded prisons. The petitioner claimed that the prison conditions and the risk of contracting COVID-19 warranted his release.

4. Petitioner's health concerns:
The petitioner cited his health issues, including acute attacks of Gastroenteritis, haemorrhoids, and other ailments, arguing that his compromised immune system increased his risk of contracting COVID-19.

5. High Powered Committee's guidelines on interim bail:
The High Powered Committee's guidelines dated 28.03.2020 excluded undertrial prisoners facing charges under the PMLA from being considered for interim bail. The petitioner argued that this exclusion was arbitrary and did not align with the Supreme Court's order.

6. State's opposition to interim bail:
The State, represented by Mr. Rahul Mehra, opposed the petitioner's request, citing the High Powered Committee's guidelines and arguing that the petitioner, accused of economic offences, did not qualify for interim bail. The State also noted that the petitioner's health was stable and that he was in isolation, minimizing the risk of COVID-19.

7. Previous court rulings on similar cases:
The petitioner referenced several verdicts, including Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, to support his claim for interim bail. However, the court found these cases distinguishable from the present case.

8. High Powered Committee's criteria for bail exclusion:
The High Powered Committee reiterated on 18.04.2020 that undertrial prisoners facing charges under the PMLA, among other serious offences, should not be considered for interim bail. The court noted that the petitioner's case fell within these excluded categories.

9. Supreme Court's direction on representation to High Powered Committee:
The Supreme Court, in Writ Petition Civil Diary No.10829/2020, allowed a petitioner to withdraw their challenge to the High Powered Committee's criteria with liberty to make a representation before the Committee. The court suggested that the petitioner could seek similar redressal.

Conclusion:
The court declined the petitioner's application for interim bail/parole, noting that the petitioner's case did not fall within the High Powered Committee's guidelines for interim bail. The court also observed that the petitioner's health condition was stable. However, the petitioner was permitted to seek redressal by making a representation to the High Powered Committee.

---