Appellant Who Was Arrested for Fraud Granted Bail on Furnishing Bond of Rs. 1 Lakh as he was Co-operative With SFIO | HC

Case Details: Hari Sankaran v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 564 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.
  • Aabad Ponda, Sr. Adv. Vikrant Singh Negi, Ekta Tyagi, Anjali Shah, Pratik Thakkar, Ms Priyamvada Singhania & Ms Sneha Barange for the Applicant.
  • H.S. Venegavkar, Aayush Kedia, Pradeep Yadav & A.A. Palkar for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, an order of investigation was passed by the Central Government i.e. the Ministry of Corporate Affairs whereby the said Ministry in the public interest based on cogent material, framed its opinion that an investigation into affairs of several companies i.e. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL & F.S) and its subsidiary companies was necessary to be conducted by SFIO and accordingly passed an order.

Pursuant to the said order, a team was appointed to carry out an investigation. The investigation report was filed by SFIO in the Special Court for framing charges against all accused including the applicant for offences punishable under section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the applicant came to be arrested. However, the Special Judge rejected his bail application.

It was noted that the applicant had been suffering from serious cardiovascular diseases and serious co-morbidities. Thus, in view of such a fragile heart as well as the overall health condition of the applicant, no purpose would be served in continuing his detention, else, it would frustrate the very object of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In case, the detention of the applicant was continued in judicial custody, it would increase the risk of cardiac death in view of medical reports placed on record. Further, an investigation was over and the applicant’s detention was no longer required in judicial custody.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that nothing was to be recovered at the instance of the applicant. Almost all evidence was in the form of documents, which were in the custody of SFIO.

Further, the High Court observed that there was no reasonable apprehension of the applicant absconding or fleeing away from justice since he had always been cooperating with SFIO’s investigation for which he had been called almost 30 times.

The High Court held that a look-out notice had already been issued against the applicant which would deter him from leaving the country. Therefore, the applicant was to be enlarged on bail upon executing a bond in the sum of Rs.1 lakh with one or two sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Court.