TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Granted Bail in Funds Siphoning Case</h1> <h3>Anil Saxena Versus State Of NCT Of Delhi</h3> Anil Saxena Versus State Of NCT Of Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Bail petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.2. Allegations of siphoning funds from Religare Finvest Limited (RFL).3. Role and involvement of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy.4. Nature of evidence and severity of accusations.5. Petitioner's contention and defense.6. Conditions for granting bail.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Bail Petition Under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC in FIR No. 50/2019 registered under Sections 409/420/120B of the IPC with PS EOW, Mandir Marg.2. Allegations of Siphoning Funds from Religare Finvest Limited (RFL):The FIR was based on a complaint by Religare Finvest Limited (RFL), a Non-Banking Finance Company. It was alleged that the petitioner, in conspiracy with the promoters of Religare Enterprises Ltd. (REL), siphoned off funds from RFL into shell companies controlled by the promoters.3. Role and Involvement of the Petitioner in the Alleged Conspiracy:The petitioner held various positions in the Religare Group since 2008, including director and Group CFO of REL. It was alleged that he approved loans to entities controlled by the promoters, misrepresented financial positions, and concealed NPAs. The chargesheet indicated his involvement in approving loans that were later found to be questionable.4. Nature of Evidence and Severity of Accusations:The court referred to the Supreme Court's guidelines in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, emphasizing the nature of accusations, evidence, and severity of punishment. The chargesheet identified nineteen questionable loans, most of which were approved after 2016 when the petitioner was not in an executive role at RFL. The documentary evidence was primarily related to the period after 2016, and the petitioner's role was primarily supervisory.5. Petitioner's Contention and Defense:The petitioner contended that he was not in day-to-day control of RFL after 2011 and acted as part of committees that approved loans. He argued that the loans were approved based on due diligence and were to be secured by immovable property. He also claimed that he did not receive any direct benefits from the loans and that his remuneration was part of an internal structure for shared services.6. Conditions for Granting Bail:The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody since 10.10.2019 and had not misused his interim bail. The petitioner was a professional accountant with no significant flight risk. The court granted bail with conditions, including not leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without permission, not contacting employees of REL or RFL, providing a contact number to the police, and ensuring presence at all hearings.Conclusion:The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount. The court clarified that the observations made were for the limited purpose of considering the bail petition and should not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the allegations.
TaxTMI 