Case Law Details
Aditya Kumar Bhandari Vs SFIO (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Bail was allowable to accused director of fraud on the reason that he was not the signatory to the alleged False Statement in the balance sheet of the Company and there was no loss caused either to any financial institution or Central/State Government and moreover, the trial proceedings is not possible within the reasonable time because of lockdown due to COVID-19 outbreak in India.
Held: Assessee was designated on paper as a Director of RHL and some other group companies. But since this was primarily an honorary position given to assessee, on account of his continued years of service he was never involved in the day-to-day affairs of the said companies and his Share Holding was negligible. Assessee was never a Guarantor of the Loans obtained by RHL. RHL was taken over by VPS Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) itself admitted that even though assessee was a whole time Director of RHL, he was not a signatory to the Financial Statements of RHL and assessee had been found NOT GUILTY of the alleged offence under Sections 129, 134 and 448 of Companies Act, 2013 in respect of alleged ‘False Statement in the Balance Sheets of RHL’ and assessee was not functioning as a decision making member of the Board of Directors and therefore he had admittedly not been held liable for alleged falsification of the balance sheets of the RHL. Moreover, there was no complaint alleging cheating or misappropriation of their funds made against assessee by any Bank or financial institution, till date. In addition, all the banks and lenders of RHL that existed before the sale of the Company to VPS Healthcare had been duly paid back and no shareholder, creditor or lender had ever raised any complaints about any alleged siphoning off of funds. Moreover, VPS Healthcare owned RHL obtained fresh bank loan of Rs.400 crores from Federal Bank for running of the operations of the Company vide Sanction Letter dated 04.01.2017. However, assessee was in no manner related to the said fresh bank loan, as he was neither the Borrower nor the Guarantor of the said new loan obtained by VPS Healthcare. It was held that admittedly, there was no loss caused either to any financial institution or Central/State Government. Moreover, there was no complaint from any share holders. It was not in dispute that investigation was complete, criminal complaint had been filed and charges were yet to be framed. Presently, our country is under ‘Lock-down’ due to COVID-19, therefore, regular functioning of the courts may take more time. Thus, in the present situation, trial of the present case is not possible in the near future. Further, there is no allegations that assessee is flight risk or may temper with the evidence or influence the witnesses. Since present application is for bail, therefore, this Court refrains from making any observation on the merit of the prosecution case, which is subject matter of the Trial. However, in view of above facts and considering the period in judicial custody, this Court is of the view that assessee deserves for bail. Accordingly, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- before the concerned Jail Superintendent and a surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court as and when, the Court starts its regular functioning.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. The present petition is filed seeking the indulgence of this Court for enlargement of the petitioner on bail in Reg. No.CC/149/2020.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
