HC reiterates balance is to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police [Read Judgment]

14 May 2022

By : Ayesha

The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Krishnan Subramanian vs State of NCT of Delhi consisting of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while granting bail observed that a balance is required to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police, which must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case.

Facts

An FIR for offences punishable u/s 409/420/120B IPC was lodged by M/s. Religare Finvest Limited (“RFL” - New Management) against Malvinder Mohan Singh, Shivinder Mohan Singh (then Promoters/Directors), Sunil Godhwani (then Chairman-cum-Managing Director) and N.K. Ghoshal. It was alleged that the aforesaid persons having absolute control on REL, and its subsidiaries have put “RFL” in poor financial condition by disbursing loans to entities, having no financial standings. These entities wilfully defaulted in repayments and caused wrongful loss to “RFL” to the huge money. The Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) pointed out some discrepancies in its analysis viz. the top borrowers of “RFL”, under Corporate Loan Book (CLB) portfolio were related entities; there was inter linkage between the borrowers as funds were routed from one borrower to another; and the loan amounts ultimately were coming to the group companies of “RFL”.

Procedural History

The investigating agencies conducted detailed investigation and consequently filed a chargesheet. It was submitted that on account of fact that no evidence surfaced to the detriment of the applicant during the aforesaid investigation as comprehensively conducted by Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”), therefore, the applicant was neither arraigned nor charge sheeted by the respondent. The supplementary chargesheet u/s 173(8) CrPC was filed by the Investigating Authorities qua the co-accused Maninder Singh. The said co-accused applied for grant of bail and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted regular bail to him. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the complainant, which was dismissed in limine.

Contentions Made

Petitioner: Relying on several judgments, it was contended that the applicant throughout his limited tenure as Group CFO of “RFL”, worked strictly under the guidance and directions of the Board of Directors. At no point of time did he hold a key role so far as management of affairs of “REL” or “RFL” was concerned. He was served a notice u/s 91 CrPC by the investigating authorities, in response to which he appeared and supplied the requisite information as well and joined investigation to the satisfaction of the investigating authorities. Officers came to his residence, he was forcefully taken to the offices of “EOW” and the arrest memo was handed over to him. No reasons whatsoever were provided to the applicant as to why he was arrested. Further investigation cannot be a ground for continued incarceration. Entire criminal activity took place within a period during which he was nowhere concerned either with “REL” or “RFL”.

Respondent: The property documents which were kept with complainant-company as security were released to the alleged borrower by accused person and a share pledge agreement as well as trademark certificates with respect to Religare Brand were deposited with “RFL”, who was the then group CEO of complainant company was under the control of accused persons, at that time. Property documents were released on the instructions of applicant herein, for which, he was not authorised.

Observations of the Court

The Bench observed that a balance should be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police, which must result in minimum interference with the personal liberty of the accused and the right of the police to investigate the case. It also observed in Ketan Suresh Pawar & Anr vs. Yuvraj Sudeepan Sawant & Anr. that since the charge sheet had been filed and the other co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the High Court had granted bail in favour of the respondent No. 1.

Judgment

In the instant case, the applicant has been languishing in jail since 8th December 2021. In that background considering the chargesheet, first supplementary chargesheet and second supplementary chargesheet as well as the fact that other co-accused persons having been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench which stand confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; and the facts and circumstances and discussion as aforesaid, the Court was inclined to allow the instant bail application seeking regular bail with certain conditions that he shall:

under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.
surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court.
appear before the Court concerned as and when required.
not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
provide his mobile number(s) and always keep it operational.
commit no offence whatsoever during the period he is on bail.
in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit.