Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 2021 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 191 - DELHI HIGH COURTGrant of Bail - siphoning of funds - transfer of funds among different companies - shell companies or not - allegation is that public money worth ₹ 2000 crores has been siphoned away by the Petitioner pursuant to a deep rooted conspiracy with the promoters of the Complainant Company and others, through a labyrinth of layered transaction - It is further submitted that Petitioner is around 60 years of age and is suffering from Sleep Apnea and his aged parents are also ill - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner received an amount of ₹ 34 crores from Fern Healthcare Private Limited, one of the shell companies, as part of the benefits for working closely with the Promoters. Fern Healthcare is an entity related to petitioner and loans to the same were proposed and approved by him. The chargesheet clearly records that the real source of the said money was the complainant company. The bank statements filed by the I.O. pursuant to Order dated 2-7-2020 shows that the Petitioner used the abovementioned funds to clear his outstanding liabilities towards RHC Holdings on the very same day on which the money was disbursed by the Complainant Company and was finally routed to the Petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that in order dated 17-6-2020 granting bail to Mr. Anil Saxena, categorically observed by coordinate bench that he was not part of day-to-day functioning of RFL is of no relevance here as the charge sheet records that by virtue of being Chairman and MD of REL, (the Petitioner herein) had a say in the functioning of RFL. Further, loans were disbursed upon Petitioner's instructions and to the entities known to him. Thus, case of petitioner is different from the case of Anil Saxena. Moreover, the Petitioner herein also benefitted by way of the loan amounting to ₹ 34 crores paid to him from the funds of the Complainant Company. The Petitioner also became the Group President of RHC Holding, which is the ultimate beneficiary of the entire fraud - The offences involve complex and layered transactions which will take time to be unearthed by the EOW. Releasing the Petitioner on bail will hamper the tracing of money trail. Additionally, the accused person being influential is capable of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses who were his subordinates. As apparent from the various documents and the bail applications themselves, there is no denial by the accused persons of the Complainant Company's funds having been siphoned away. There is a higher apprehension of the accused persons absconding as they are aware that they may be convicted - Moreover, the Complainant Company has filed various complaints and FIR and the investigation in still pending. Complainant Company verily believes that the Petitioner has been charge sheet in another case emanating from FIRs No. 189/2019 dated 23-9-2019, which is pending at the stage of cognizance. This is not an isolated instance and there are various other frauds committed by the accused persons. Agencies like SEBI, ED and SFIO are also investigating into the matter. The present case is of an economic offence involving siphoning of public money/investor money to the tune of ₹ 2000 crores. It is settled law that economic offences are considered to be grave offences especially when public money is involved and that the Courts have to be careful in granting bail in such cases - the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka [2017 (3) TMI 1777 - SUPREME COURT] has held that filing of the chargesheet does not lessen the allegations of the prosecution in any manner. This Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
|