2020 (7) TMI 580 - HC - Indian Laws

Petitioner Granted Bail in Funds Siphoning Case

The petitioner was granted bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC in a case involving allegations of siphoning funds from Religare Finvest Limited. Despite ... Grant of Bail - unsecured loans granted by RFL to various entities - Non-performing Assets - ever-greening of loans - conspiracy with the Promoters and for their benefit - It is alleged that despite the report of RBI, the petitioner had not taken any remedial measures, but on the contrary actively sought to misrepresent the financial position of RFL by concealing various NPAs - HELD THAT:- The reading of the chargesheet indicates that the prosecution had identified nineteen questionable loan transactions where the borrowers had defaulted in repayment of the dues advanced to them. The chargesheet indicates that in all of those nineteen instances, the loan had been approved by the Risk Management Committee and in certain cases was also approved by the RPT (Related Party Transaction) sub-committee. The date on which the approvals were been granted are indicated in the chargesheet. All of these questionable transactions pertain to the period after the year, 2016 - However, it cannot be disputed that most of the questionable loan transactions had been entered into after 2016. Undisputedly, the petitioner was employed with the Religare Group of Companies in various capacities since 2008. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner was not holding any executive position in RFL after 13.11. 2011. The chargesheet indicates that he had ceased to be a whole time director with effect from 13.11.2011. The petitioner acted as the Group CFO from 06.04.2010 till his resignation on 14.11.2017; thus, it prima facie appears that the petitioner may have supervised certain executive functions relating to RFL but he was not control of its day to day management. The petitioner is a qualified Chartered Accountant and there is no allegation that he had any other stake in REL or RFL except as an employee or an official of the said companies. It prima facie does appear that the petitioner was employed by virtue of his professional qualifications. There is also little material to establish that the remuneration paid to the petitioner was not commensurate with his position in REL. The above is also a vital aspect to be borne in mind while examining whether the petitioner should be granted bail - This Court is not persuaded to accept that the petitioner has any propensity to tamper with the relevant evidence. As noticed above, the petitioner had left the employment of the REL almost three years ago. He had also resigned as a director of RFL. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate with one surety of the like amount. This is also subject to further conditions imposed - petition allowed. 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.