RFL Scam: Delhi HC grants Bail to Promoters and CA [Read Order]

In a recent development in the Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL), the Delhi High Court has granted bail to ex-Fortis promoter Malvinder Mohan Singh and three others in a case of alleged misappropriation of funds of Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL) lodged by the Delhi Police. Besides Malvinder Mohan Singh, the high court also granted bail to former CMD of Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) Sunil Godhwani, former CEO of REL Kavi Arora and Rajender Aggarwal, a Chartered Accountant, who was director or shareholder of certain companies to which loans were extended by RFL at the behest of its parent entity REL, which were then allegedly defaulted on. The applicant, Rajender Aggarwal was the director as well as a shareholder of M/s Tara Alloys Pvt. Ltd. when a loan of Rs. 85 crores was extended to the said company by RFL. He was also the director and shareholder of M/s Neelanchal Holding Pvt. Ltd. to which Rs. 59 Crores were diverted from M/s Tara Alloys Pvt. Ltd. It was further alleged that a loan of Rs. 92.50 crores was received by M/s Sridham Distributors Pvt. Ltd. which was also controlled by the applicant and out of the said Rs. 92.50 crores, Rs. 66.40 crores was further diverted to M/s Neelanchal Holdings Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged that the applicant, in conspiracy with Narendra Kumar Ghoushal facilitated the promoters, i.e., Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh to divert money from RFL. For the said purpose he provided shell companies controlled by him and his associates to route and re-route the money through various entities which was finally diverted to RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd., which, as aforesaid was owned by Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh. After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Amit Sharma observed that “gravity of an offence would be a factor at the time of consideration for grant of bail, but, at the same time, it cannot be the only criteria for denying bail either.” “As laid down in the aforesaid precedents, the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and the same is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial. The underlying principle in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements is that a person, who otherwise has roots in the society and is satisfying the other general conditions for grant of bail should, after completion of investigation, should not be kept in continued judicial incarceration as a matter of punishment, even before the conclusion of trial. In the present case, this Court is of the opinion that no possible prejudice can be caused to the case of the prosecution before the learned Trial Court if the applicant is released on bail with necessary considerations, safeguarding the interests of the prosecution, especially when other co-accused persons have also been granted bail,” the Court observed. Considering the fact that the investigation is complete and the main chargesheet, as well as the supplementary chargesheets are filed before the Trial Court, the Court allowed the bail application. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates