Delhi High Court
Francis Daniel Lee vs State on 21 February, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21st FEBRUARY, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ BAIL APPLN. 2453/2021 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 928/2021, CRL.M.A.
20202/2021, CRL.M.A. 21042/2021
FRANCIS DANIEL LEE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
with SI Suresh Kumar, PS EOW
Mr. Mohit Mathur Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep D. Das, Mr. Sitesh
Mukherjee, Mr. Shashwat Sarin,
Mr.Harsh Gautam, Advocates for the
complainant
+ BAIL APPLN. 2454/2021 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 929/2021, CRL.M.A.
20201/2021, CRL.M.A. 51/2022
FRANCIS DANIEL LEE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State
Mr. Mohit Mathur Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sandeep D. Das, Mr. Sitesh
Mukherjee, Mr. Shashwat Sarin,
Mr.Harsh Gautam, Advocates for the
complainant
BAIL APPLN. 2453/2021 & BAIL APPLN. 2454/2021 Page 1 of 20
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. These applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 63/2020 dated 01.07.2020 registered at
Police Station EOW under Sections 409/420/468/471/120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and FIR No. 82/2020 dated
06.08.2020 registered at Police Station EOW under Sections
406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
2. The facts, in brief, leading to BAIL APPLN. 2453/2021 are as
follows:
a) It is stated that Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan
Singh, promoters of Complainant Companies - Religare
Enterprises Limited (REL) and Religare Finvest Limited (RFL),
held an all-pervasive control over REL and its subsidiaries, and
that they held this control until 14 February 2018 when they
resigned as Non-Executive Chairman and Non-Executive Vice-
Chairman of the Board of Directors of REL, respectively.
b) It is stated that a corporate fraud was discovered when the
Board of Directors at REL was reconstituted after the decline of
promoters' shareholding in REL and the exit of Malvinder
Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, and they found REL
and its subsidiaries to be in a terrible financial condition, and
that there was widespread illegal siphoning off of funds from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
REL and RFL. Multiple complaints were filed pertaining to this,
and this led to FIR No. 50/2019 being registered.
c) It is stated that Mr. Francis Daniel Lee, the Petitioner herein,
was a Director on the Board of REL from 17.11.2017 to
13.02.2018 and that he worked in connivance with Mohnish
Mukkar to cause wrongful loss to REL and RFL. During
internal inquiries of the new management at RFL, discrepancies
were found in the Goods and Sales Tax (GST) credit on its
account for invoices raised by KE Valuation Services, a brand
name of Kalpana Export.
d) It is stated that RFL, in a letter dated 01.05.2018, had stated that
it had received invoices from Kalpana Export against a certain
product and that the GST credit on its ISD registration with
respect to the invoices was Rs. 77,436.81/- against the GST
charged on such invoices aggregating to Rs. 51/75/360/- which
would lead to a shortfall on the GST credit for RFL and result in
a cash outflow. On seeking a clarification regarding the types of
services offered by Kalpana Export, RFL received an email on
31.05.2018 stating that Kalpana Export engaged in trading of
diamonds and had supplied rough diamonds to RFL on
16.12.2017 worth Rs. 3,10,52,160/-, and that they deposited an
amount of Rs. 77,436.81/- towards IGST @ 0.25% as
applicable.
e) It is stated that RFL has never ordered any rough diamonds and
that the invoice sent by Kalpana Export appears to be signed by
a person named "P Sharma', allegedly a director of RFL, but his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
signature does not match that of any director at RFL. After
further inquiries, an engagement letter was recovered dated
22.08.2017 shared by KE Valuation Services for certain
services to be rendered by them in real estate to RFL, but the
terms and scope of the work mentioned were vague and
obscure, and it is stated that this was a mere ruse to extract
money out of RFL.
f) It is stated that the emails indicate that the Petitioner herein
urgently sought approval to process payments to KE Valuation
Services/Kalpana Export, and that this payment was approved
by three members of the Group Monitoring and Auditing
Council (GMA) which included one Rajesh Sharma, one
Gurvinder Singh Juneja and one Pawan Seth, along with the
approval of the Petitioner herein. It is stated that all the
approvals were secured at the behest of the Petitioner herein
who has never held any management position in RFL and has
had no authority to permit any payment on behalf of RFL, and
that these acts reveal a breach of trust by the Petitioner herein
who was bestowed with the responsibility of an Executive
Director of REL and owed a fiduciary duty towards it.
g) It is stated that another tax invoice dated 16.12.2017 of Kalpana
Export for rough diamonds worth Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was
discovered and it was signed by one Shrikant Prasad on behalf
of Halcyon, a restructuring company where Mohnish Mukkar
was one of the Directors. It is to be noted that Shrikant Prasad is
also the authorized signatory for Loancare Servicing Solutions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
Pvt. Ltd. on whose Board the Petitioner herein is sitting. It is to
be noted that Halcyon, Lionforge Intertrade Pvt. Ltd., Strategic
Credit Capital Pvt. Ltd. share the same directors and registered
office. Further, Loancore Services Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and
Lionforge Intertrade Pvt. Ltd. also share the same directors.
h) It is stated that the ledger account of Kalpana Export sent to
Halcyon shows that an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was
transferred by Kalpana Export to Halcyon on 16.12.2017, and
that this shows a nexus between the Petitioner herein, Mohnish
Mukkar, Shrikant Prasad, KE Valuation Services/Kalpana
Export and Halcyon to divert funds from RFL to Halcyon
through Kalpana Export.
i) It is stated that the accused persons entered into a conspiracy
with each other to cheat the management of RFL into clearing
forged invoices for services that were not even availed by RFL,
and that there are no records with RFL approving the purchase
of any diamonds as such. It is stated that the Petitioner herein,
along with Mohnish Mukkar and Shrikant Prasad forged
invoices and siphoned off funds of RFL causing immense loss
to RFL and its public shareholders.
j) The Petitioner herein filed an Anticipatory Bail Application No.
574/2021 before the Ld. Sessions Court which was dismissed
vide Order dated 23.06.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. The facts, in brief, leading to BAIL APPLN. 2454/2021 are as
follows:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
a. It is stated that the accused persons/companies, including the
Petitioner herein, have entered into a criminal conspiracy to
intentionally deceive the Complainant (Religare Finvest
Limited) by forging a document to malign the reputation of the
Complainant and by fabricating Settlement Agreement dated
30.01.2018, thereby causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.
150,000,000/- to the Complainant.
b. It is stated that the Petitioner herein (Accused No.1), without
having the authority to execute any sort of document or
agreement on behalf of the Complainant, executed Settlement
Agreement 30.10.2018 in connivance with co-accused Dinesh
Kanodia (Accused No.2) to deceive the Complainant. Further,
M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (ZEEL) (Accused
No.10) vide an Assignment Agreement dated 29.01.2018 has
assigned all rights, title and interest in favour of Asian, Konti,
Edisons and Widescreens (accused companies), who have gone
on to create the allegedly illegal Settlement Agreement dated
30.01.2018 as per which the accused persons/companies have
sought to set off/appropriate the liabilities of M/s Oscar
Investments Limited (Oscar) (Accused No.19). It is stated that
the Complainant Company has never executed any
document/agreement with Oscar.
c. It is stated that the Complainant had sanctioned a loan facility of
Rs. 260,00,00,000/- to Zee Group Companies, which consists of
seven companies, including accused companies - Asian
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
Satellite Broadcast Private Limited, Edisons Infrapower and
Multiventures Private Limited, Konti Infrapower and
Multiventures Private Limited and Widescreen Holdings Private
Limited. It is stated that as per the Sanction Letter, the
sanctioned amount was distributed amongst seven companies in
seven different loan amounts vide loan agreements dated
15.03.2014. It is stated that the aggregate amount of the loan
facility disbursed to accused companies amounted to Rs.
150,00,00,000/- vide Loan Agreements dated 15.03.2014 for the
purpose of investment and consolidation of promoter interest in
group companies wherein the accused companies had created
security interest in the form of several Compulsory Convertible
Debentures (CCD) by way of pledge in favour of the
Complainant and the tenure of the same was for a period of 12
months from the date of disbursal, with it being renewed for a
period of 36 months vide facility schedule of terms dated
30.03.2015 to be expired on 31.03.2018.
d. It is stated that the accused companies defaulted in re-payment
of their outstanding dues and notice dated 19.03.2018 was
issued by the Complainant. In response to the notice, the
accused companies refused to pay the loan on the grounds that
they had signed the allegedly fabricated Settlement Agreement
dated 30.01.2018 that stated that the loans were not to be repaid
by them. Vide email dated 20.12.2017, it is stated that the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had directed Mr. Subramanian
Lakshminarayanan, the Executive Chairman of REL, to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
withdraw all powers of the Petitioner herein with immediate
effect and to make him step down from the Board of Directors
which was subsequently accepted by the Petitioner herein vide
his email dated 22.12.2017. All powers of the Petitioner herein
were terminated, including power/authority to grant approval on
any financial matter or issue any instructions related to the
administration.
e. It is stated that in absence of any authority, the Settlement
Agreement dated 30.01.2018 could not have been executed and,
therefore, the same was a fraudulent, dishonest and mala fide
manner of cheating the Complainant Company. The
Complainant Company was made aware of the Settlement
Agreement only by way of a reply filed by the accused
companies to Applications under Section 9 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed before this Court. Emails were
also found between the Petitioner herein and other accused
persons as they were also filed along with the Statement of
Defense (SOD) on behalf of the accused companies in the
proceedings on 21.08.2019. The emails disclosed that the
Petitioner herein, without having the authority to execute any
sort of document or agreement on behalf of the Complainant,
executed Settlement Agreement 30.10.2018 in connivance with
co-accused Dinesh Kanodia to deceive the Complainant
Company and even counterfeited the seal of Complainant
Company so that the accused companies could evade their
liabilities.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
f. The Petitioner herein filed Anticipatory Bail Application No.
398/2021 before the Ld. Sessions Court which was dismissed
vide Order dated 23.06.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
4. Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits
that both the FIRs stem from FIR No. 50/2019 dated 27.03.2019 registered
at P.S. EOW and that FIR No. 50/2019 does not name the Petitioner herein.
He states that when the Petitioner's relationship with REL was terminated on
10.02.2018, he had been staying at his hometown Ranchi with his family
and, therefore, had done no work after 15.12.2017. He submits that the
Petitioner had been inducted into the Board of REL as a representative of
M/s Loancare Servicing Solutions (that sought to acquire a stake in REL) in
view of the pending litigations between REL/RFL and other corporate
entities, and his only endeavour was to streamline their affairs.
5. With regard to FIR No. 63/2020, the learned Counsel submits that the
GMA which approved of the invoices for Kalpana Exports consisted of five
persons, including the CMD and the Petitioner herein, and that it was not the
Petitioner who had processed for approval of payment, in fact, it was
referred to the three members for approval, and it was only after their
approval and recommendation did the Petitioner forward the same to the
CMD. Mr. Sinha submits to this Court that the allegations against the
Petitioner are motivated in wake of the fact that there exists a dispute
between M/s Loancare and the fact that the remaining three members of the
GMA are still employed at REL. The learned Counsel argues that the sole
allegation in FIR No. 63/2020 is merely indicative of how the Petitioner is
being made a scapegoat for the errors committed by the GMA.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
6. With regard to FIR No. 82/2020, Mr. Sinha submits that the Petitioner
herein had not signed the allegedly fraudulent Settlement Agreement dated
30.01.2018 which had only come to his notice on 24.08.2018 by one Mr.
Ashok Mehta, a Director of REL and, subsequently, the Petitioner sent an
Affidavit dated 10.10.2018 to the Complainant, contesting the veracity of his
signature on the Settlement Agreement. He states that the Petitioner has only
been roped in due to disagreements that had arisen against the Petitioner's
way of functioning during his tenure at REL. Mr. Sinha further submits that
the Petitioner had received two notices under Sections 91/160 of Cr.P.C.
dated 01.01.2021 and 04.02.2021, and that the Petitioner had replied to the
said notices along with the documents that were available with him as he
was not in a condition to a travel.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the
documents on record reveal that the instant issue relates to the dispute
between the Complainant Company and the accused companies, and that
arbitration proceedings are already pending with regard to the said dispute.
He states that the emails which allegedly delineate the communication that
took place between the Petitioner and the accused companies have not been
provided to the Petitioner. He submits that no material exists that could be
relied upon to bring offences under Sections 406/409/420/467/468/471 IPC
against the Petitioner.
8. Mr. Sinha refers to the Reply of the Investigating Officer dated
17.03.2021 before the Ld. Sessions Court in the anticipatory bail application
of the Petitioner herein in FIR No. 63/2020 to show that there were
contradictions in the same. He further submits that the Reply dated
17.03.2021 had stated that the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
necessary to recovery the funds that had been siphoned off as well as to
recover the instrument that been utilised to forge the invoices. Mr. Sinha,
appearing for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner has deep roots in
society and there is no chance of him fleeing justice. He states that the
Petitioner intends to join the investigation and that this investigation is based
on documents only and that there is no need for the custodial interrogation of
the Petitioner in the instant case, and therefore, he should be granted
anticipatory bail in both the FIRs.
9. Per contra, Amit Chadha, the learned APP for the State, submits that
the Petitioner was at the helm of affairs of the Complainant Company and
was instrumental in causing wrongful loss to the Complainant Company to
the tune of Rs. 3.39 crores. He submits that investigation had revealed that
Rs. 3.39 crores had been transferred to the account of Kalpana Exports and
that from this account, an amount of Rs. 2 crores was transferred to accused
company, Halcyon Asia Support Services Pvt. Ltd. Further, KYC documents
of the accused company confirmed that the account had been opened by
Mohnish Mukkar and Nisha Gupta.
10. The learned APP further submits that the sole proprietor of Kalpana
Exports, Rajesh C. Rajguru had been examined and he stated that he was a
diamond broker. Rajguru revealed that as per instructions, he had handed
over Rs. 1 crore in cash to his cousin Vallabh Bhai and Rs. 2 crores had been
transferred to M/s Halcyon. Rajguru further stated that he had never raised
invoices in the name of KE Valuation Services and they were forged. The
learned APP submits that it is suspected that the Rs. 1 crore has been taken
by the Petitioner herein. Mr. Chadha has also brought to notice of this Court
that email trails were provided by Rajesh Sharma, Director Internal Audit,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
REL, which confirmed that the three invoices of KE Valuations had been
forwarded by the Petitioner herein to one Hemant Singh Shekhawat, and that
at the time of transaction, these forged invoices had been specifically
forwarded by the Petitioner from his own email ID for approvals. It was also
revealed that one of the email IDs ([email protected]) that the
Petitioner had forwarded the invoices to belonged to the employee of
Mohnish Mukkar, thereby establishing the conspiracy between the Petitioner
and Mukkar.
11. In reference to FIR No. 82/2020, Mr. Chadha submits that expert
opinion has been supplied with regard to the authenticity of the signature of
the Petitioner on the Settlement Agreement dated 30.01.2018 and this
opinion indicates that the signature is indeed the Petitioner's. The learned
APP states that the Petitioner played a vital role in the preparation of the said
Settlement Agreement and interrogation is required to probe the same.
12. Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP, submits that the Petitioner is not
cooperating in the investigation and that his custodial interrogation is
necessary in order to not only recover the large amounts of money, but to
also ascertain the role of co-conspirators. Mr. Chadha further submits before
this Court that NBW had been issued in FIR No. 63/2020 against the
Petitioner, and that on 01.03.2021, a raid had been conducted at his
addresses, however, the Petitioner was not found to be residing there. Mr.
Amit Chadha, therefore, vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail
applications of the Petitioner herein.
13. Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the Complainant,
submits that the Petitioner has caused wrongful loss of Rs. 150 crores of
public monies to RFL which is a subsidiary of REL that is a widely held
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
public company, and therefore, the loss affects approximately 58,000
shareholders. He informs this Court that vide Order dated 20.01.2022 passed
by the Ld. CMM in State v. Francis Daniel Lee and Ors. in FIR No.
63/2020, the Petitioner had been declared absconding.
14. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the alleged Settlement
Agreement dated 30.01.2018 dictates that the loan of Rs. 150 crores that had
been extended to the accused companies would be suspended and that RFL
had agreed to not recover the same in consideration of the accused
companies not being able to recover their outstanding liability from M/s
Oscar Investments Limited. Mr. Mathur argues that as M/s Oscar was not a
party to the alleged Settlement Agreement, the Complainant could not
recover the money. He states that the alleged Settlement Agreement was
executed by the Petitioner herein who had no authority to do so and was
indicative of the conspiracy that had been hatched by the Petitioner in
collusion with one Mr. Dinesh Kanodia so as to provide wrongful advantage
to M/s Loancore and the Essel Group (accused companies).
15. Mr. Mathur concludes his submissions by stating that the offences of
which the Petitioner has been accused are grave in nature and are punishable
with a sentence of life imprisonment. He states that anticipatory bail should
not be granted in cases of siphoning off of public money and that
investigation is still in its nascent stage. He, therefore, vehemently opposes
the bail applications of the Petitioner herein and states that custodial
interrogation is required to unearth the underlying conspiracy.
16. Heard Mr. Shree Prakash Sinha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner,
Mr. Amit Chadha, learned APP for the State, and Mr. Mohit Mathur, learned
Senior Counsel for the Complainant, and perused the material on record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
17. Section 438 Cr.P.C. stipulates that directions can be given by the High
Court or the Sessions Court for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.
Sub-section (1) of 438 Cr.P.C. states that any person who approaches the
Court seeking anticipatory bail must have a "reason to believe" that they
may be arrested in a non-bailable offence. However, the ultimate decision to
grant anticipatory bail is reliant upon the discretion of the Court. No
straitjacket formula can be employed while considering an application for
grant of anticipatory bail and the Court must apply its own mind to the
question to decide whether a case has been made out for grant of such relief.
18. The Supreme Court had succinctly delineated the aforementioned
principle pertaining to anticipatory bail in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. The relevant portion has been
reproduced as follows:
"15. Judges have to decide cases as they come before
them, mindful of the need to keep passions and
prejudices out of their decisions. And it will be strange
if, by employing judicial artifices and techniques, we
cut down the discretion so wisely conferred upon the
courts, by devising a formula which will confine the
power to grant anticipatory bail within a strait-jacket.
While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like
granting anticipatory bail, as the High Court has done,
it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but
an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situations.
Life is never static and every situation has to be
assessed in the context of emerging concerns as and
when it arises. Therefore, even if we were to frame a
„Code for the grant of anticipatory bail‟, which really
is the business of the legislature, it can at best furnish
broad guide-lines and cannot compel blind adherence.
In which case to grant bail and in which to refuse it is,
in the very nature of things, a matter of discretion. But
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
apart from the fact that the question is inherently of a
kind which calls for the use of discretion from case to
case, the legislature has, in terms express, relegated
the decision of that question to the discretion of the
court, by providing that it may grant bail "if it thinks
fit". The concern of the courts generally is to preserve
their discretion without meaning to abuse it. It will be
strange if we exhibit concern to stultify the discretion
conferred upon the courts by law."
19. In the instant case, the investigation that has taken place till date
reveals to this Court that in FIR No. 63/2020, an amount to the tune of Rs.
3.39 crores had been transferred from account bearing No. 00340022666 at
HDFC Bank, K.G. Marg, New Delhi of RFL into the account of M/s
Kalpana Export, Surat, Gujarat. From this account, an amount of Rs. 2
crores had been transferred to Halcyon Asia Support Services Pvt. Ltd.
Further, the KYC documents of M/s Halcyon reveals that this account had
been opened by Mohnish Mukkar and Nisha Gupta. The factum of transfers
have been reproduced as under:
Amt.
S.No. Dated Name of the Company Credited (In
Rs.)
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
1. 16.12.17 49,75,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
2. 16.12.17 49,25,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
3. 16.12.17 49,48,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
4. 16.12.17 49,52,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
20. Furthermore, bank account statements of the Petitioner's bank account
bearing no. 23091000001552 at HDFC Bank, Gumia Branch, Jharkhand also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
reveal that the following amounts have been credited to the Petitioner's
account from the accused company M/s Halcyon Asia Support Services Pvt.
Limited:
Amt.
S.No. Dated Name of the Company Credited (In
Rs.)
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
1. 03.10.17 50,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
M/s Halcyon Asia Support
2. 08.11.17 2,00,000/-
Services Pvt. Limited
21. The email trails as have been provided by Rajesh Sharma, Director
Internal Audit of REL, also reveal that the Petitioner was instrumental in
forwarding the allegedly forged invoices of KE Valuation Services to an
email ID that was registered on the mobile phone no. 9599498032 belonging
to an employee of co-accused Mohnish Mukkar. The trail of emails has been
reproduced as under:
"● The 3 invoices of KE Valuations-were firstly
received by Francis Lee on mail from an outside email
ID of some Project Management & Valuation Services
[email protected] at 1:45 PM.
● The above said mentioned email was forwarded
to Hemant Singh Shekhwat at 1:56 PM.
● After that, at 3:34 PM, the same was forwarded
to Shivani Gupta.
● It has also emerged from perusal of mail trail
that Mahavir Negi, a senior member of the Finance
Ops Team, had written to Shivani Gupta on 15.12.17 at
3:58 PM mentioning that for processing the attached
invoices of KE Valuations RFL's GST member, PAN
number & state code should be mentioned on the
invoices.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
● Mahavir Negi further requested Shivani Gupta
to arrange the same on invoices.
● Consequently, Shivani Gupta forwarded the
above said mail of Mahavir Negi to Francis Lee at
4:07 PM requesting him to provide requisite details of
GST/PAN/State code etc.
● It has further emerged from the perusal of mail
trails that Francis Lee forwarded the above said
received mail from Shivani Gupta to an outside email
id of Project Management & Valuation Services
[email protected]
● Thereafter, Project Management & Valuation
Services [email protected] at 5:07 PM
emailed 3 revised invoices to Francis Lee
incorporating the GST No., state code and PAN No. of
RFL in all the three invoices.
● Francis Lee forwarded the revised 3 invoices to
Shivani Gupta at 5:17 PM and Shivani Gupta sent
these 3 revised invoices to Mahavir Negi at 5:18 PM
requesting them to validate the invoices and thereafter,
the payment of the revised invoices was processed"
22. With regard to the allegations in FIR No. 82/2020, the material on
record reveals that a loan facility of Rs. 150 crores had been disbursed to the
accused companies vide Loan Agreements dated 15.03.2014. These accused
companies had created security interest in the form of several Compulsory
Convertible Debentures (CCD) and pledged the same in favour of the
Complainant Company. The initial tenure of this facility was for a period of
12 months from the date of disbursal, and later it was renewed for period of
3 years on 30.03.2015. When the accused companies defaulted on their
repayment, notice dated 19.03.2018 was sent to them and it was
consequently found that the alleged Settlement Agreement dated 30.01.2018
had been signed wherein the responsibility of paying the dues was imposed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
on M/s Oscar Investments Limited. The material placed before this Court
indicates that expert opinion has stated that the signature of the Petitioner
herein on the alleged Settlement Agreement is indeed the Petitioner's,
however, the same is to be deciphered during the course of trial. Emails
pertaining to direct assignment, meeting with the Reserve Bank of India, and
the request letters-facility convert to unsecured loan, have also been supplied
by the Complainant Company to showcase that the Petitioner herein was
constantly in touch with the accused companies and had actively hatched the
conspiracy to cheat the Complainant Company out of crores of money.
23. The provision of anticipatory bail, while taking into consideration that
social ignominy is not caused to the accused by way of being arrested, must
also not allow the accused to take advantage of the same in order to flee
from justice. It is well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of
investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to
be questioned in detail regarding various facets of motive, preparation,
commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons,
if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused may
provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be
necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to
proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected
with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law
and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an
inevitable part of the process of investigation. Therefore, factors such as
nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, context of the events leading
to the said charges, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or
threatening witnesses, likelihood of presence being secured during trial, etc.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
must be taking into account while deciding an application for anticipatory
bail [Refer Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab, (Supra)].
24. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the Petitioner herein is
evading arrest, despite having been served notices under Section 91/160
Cr.P.C. An NBW has also been issued against the Petitioner in FIR No.
63/2020. Apart from being accused of having siphoned off funds from the
Complainant Company to the tune of Rs. 3.39 crores, the Petitioner has
further been accused of forging the stamp of the Complainant Company as
well as surreptitiously executing the Settlement Agreement dated 30.01.2018
that discharged the liability of the accused companies to pay Rs. 150 crores
to the Complainant Company.
25. It is of the opinion of this Court that there is weight in the submission
of the learned APP that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required to
not only recover the large amounts of money that have been cheated from
the Complainant Company, but to also shed light to the roles of the alleged
co-conspirators in the instant matter. This Court must also keep in mind that
the Petitioner is the main accused in the instant FIRs and there is a strong
likelihood of him evading arrest and not cooperating in the investigation, as
has been exhibited in the past.
26. It must also be borne in mind that investigation is pending and the
instant matter pertains to siphoning off of large amounts of public money
which is an offence of a grave nature. Power to grant anticipatory bail in
economic offences must be exercised sparingly as these offences stand on a
different footing due their effect on the economic fabric of society [Refer P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24]. Therefore,
granting anticipatory at this juncture may not only have a negative impact on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
the investigation in the case, but may also affect the faith that is reposed in
the criminal justice system.
27. In light of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to grant
anticipatory bail to the Petitioner herein in FIR No. FIR No. 63/2020 dated
01.07.2020 registered at Police Station EOW under Sections
409/420/468/471/120-B IPC and FIR No. 82/2020 dated 06.08.2020
registered at Police Station EOW under Sections
406/409/420/467/468/471/120-B IPC.
28. With the above observations, the instant bail applications are
dismissed, along with pending application(s), if any.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
FEBRUARY 21, 2022
Rahul
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.02.2022
18:49
