New Delhi, Feb 21 (PTI) A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed the bail plea of businessman Satya Prakash Bagla in a case related to the alleged cheating of Kolkata-based investors.

Additional Sessions Judge Shunali Gupta rejected the bail application, observing that the allegations against Bagla were "serious and grave in nature" and disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 409 of the IPC (316 BNS; criminal breach of trust by an agent) committed in a "calculated manner".

"The allegations thus are serious in nature involving a huge sum of money routed out of ECL (Exclusive Capital Limited) without any proper authorisation sans documentation for his own personal benefits. He was thus the beneficiary of the said sums siphoned off from the company.

"Relevant to note herein that this process constitutes a systematic fraud as the funds were routed out of the company through a complex/layered transactions and prima facie attracts the applicability of Section 409 IPC," said the judge in the order.

Bagla, owner of non-banking financial company ECL, was arrested by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police on January 9 for alleged diversion and siphoning of investor funds from ECL amounting to nearly Rs 315 crore.

The court also took note that the investigation was still at a crucial initial stage, as the money trail was still being verified and one co-accused has been recently arrested, while another was yet to be apprehended.

The judge further took note of the complainant's arguments that certain digital devices allegedly used by Bagla had not been recovered and the mobile phone produced before the investigating officer (IO) did not contain data as it had been recently wiped out.

"In such circumstances when the investigation is at a crucial/initial stage as the entire offence requires to be decoded and probed thoroughly which may even require forensic analysis, in my considered opinion the thwarting of investigation, tampering or destruction of evidence by the applicant cannot be ruled out," said the judge.

The court also took note of Bagla's criminal antecedents and that he failed to meet the obligation to disclose them in the present bail application.

The court noted that while the investigating agency did end up disclosing these facts, Supreme Court precedents require "such positive disclosure on part of the applicant which is palpably missing in the present bail application." The court also clarified that the matters being sub-judice before the National Company Law Tribunal is of no concern to this case as the scope of proceedings are different. The present bail application deals with offences that are criminal in nature and punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC).

"There is no bar/prohibition to conduct investigation wherein the matter is pending before NCLT. Law is clear on this aspect that both proceedings can be continued simultaneously," the court clarified.

The counsel for the accused had earlier argued that Bagla's medical condition was deteriorating in the jail, as he had only one functioning kidney and high blood pressure.

However, the court rejected these grounds as it said, "the medical documents attached with the bail application are not reflective of any medical condition which warrants urgency or otherwise can't be catered to/treated in the jail hospitals." "I am of the firm opinion that considering the serious nature of offence, investigation being at the nascent stage, concealment of past criminal antecedents by the applicant and the likelihood of thwarting the investigation by the applicant impels me to dismiss the bail application at this stage," the court held.

The case was based on a complaint filed by a Kolkata-based senior citizen couple, Suresh Kumar Agarwala and Kanta Agarwala, in October 2025 against the directors of ECL, including Bagla, Achal Kumar Jindal and Johnson Kallarachal Abraham.

An FIR was filed against them under Sections 318 (cheating), 316 (criminal breach of trust and 61 (criminal conspiracy) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The couple had accused Bagla of misleading them into investing in Exclusive Capital. They later found themselves in the middle of a multi-crore fraud as the three directors siphoned off the investments to purchase luxury cars, electronic goods and lend sham loans to their connected entities. PTI MDB ZMN

Criminal breach of trust: bail denied due to complex fund diversion, risk of evidence tampering and undisclosed antecedents. Refusal of bail rested on prima facie findings that the NBFC owner-director engaged in calculated, layered diversion of investor funds amounting to criminal breach of trust; investigation remained at a nascent stage with a complex money trail requiring forensic analysis and a real risk of evidence tampering, compounded by the applicant's non-disclosure of prior criminal antecedents and insufficient medical justification.