"Dark period in history of NSE:" Delhi court rejects Chitra Ramkrishna anticipatory bail plea

A Delhi court on Saturday rejected the anticipatory bail plea of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) head Chitra Ramkrishna, who faces arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly sharing confidential information relating to the NSE [Chitra Ramkrishna vs CBI]..Former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna claims decisions guided by Himalayan resident 'Siddha Purusha'; SEBI bars her.Special CBI Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of the Rouse Avenue court noted that bail matters regarding economic offences have to be approached differently as they involve conspiracies that are deep-rooted towards losses of public funds. ."This kind of co-location swindle could not have been possible without the knowledge and active connivance of all the functional heads of the NSE at the relevant time, this period can be considered as dark period in the history of NSE," the Court said. .The Court took note of the CBI's reply that Ramkrishna had not given any proper responses to its questions in the three days she was interrogated. Since co-accused Anand Subramanian is already under police remand, the CBI argued that questioning both of them would be needed to dig out the truth. The Court, however, said the approach of the CBI has been 'most lackadaisical' as no action seems to have been taken against the main beneficiaries of the alleged co-location scam, and others for nearly four full years, who seemed to be "enjoying merrily at the expense of common citizenry". The judge also came down on the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), stating it had been "too kind and gentle" with respect to the accused.Ramkrishna is charged with leaking sensitive information to the co-accused and others, initially claiming that she was acting on the counsel of a Himalayan yogi who turned out to be Subramanian as per the probe. .This period can be considered as dark period in the history of NSE.Special CBI court .Counsel for Ramkrishna submitted that undue public pressure is being created through the media on investigating agencies after the SEBI's observations in the matter, even though the offence is more than four years old and the accused have been fully cooperating since. It was submitted that all the material electronic and documentary is already in the possession of the CBI and the NSE, leaving nothing to be recovered from the applicant. She cannot tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses in any way, the counsel added. Counsel for respondents argued the applicant is very influential in dealing with the affairs related to the NSE and has remained evasive regarding the major issues in question. Hence, she has to be examined in detail on all the aspects that has come to fore during the course of investigation including the facts revealed in the forensic audits of the co-location carried out by various agencies, it was submitted..The Court at the outset observed the gravity of the offence, role played by the accused as well as the nature of accusations, punishment it entails as well as the magnitude of the offence and length of sentence prescribed are to be considered while hearing anticipatory bail applications."But at the same time, the magnitude of the allegations against the accused as well as the enormity of the allegations especially in case of economic offences which are considered as a class of their own have to be viewed differently," the Court said.Economic offences fall under the category of grave offences given the alleged loss of public funds, the Court opined. It cannot be said prima facie that the role of the present accused is not under scanner, the judge further noted."It further appears prima facie that the applicant / accused had introduced an non existing person to misled the investigating agency, which may also prima facie show her connivance in the matter. The very appointment of Mr Anand Subramanian without following due process at very exorbitant salary, prima facie shows that all of them may have been acting in tandem with each other in carrying out or in furtherance of the objectives of the co-location scam," the order said.The Court ruled that the Ramkrishna does not meet the triple test criteria for grant of bail. Given the magnitude of the case, the Court observed the possibility of the NSE's reputation being hit."Due to this financial skulduggery huge loss may have been caused to adherent stockbrokers, institutional investors, foreign institutional investors and honest investors, whose faith in this premier financial institution i.e. NSE may have been severely shaken and dented," the order said.Disposing of the plea, the Court said no grounds for grant of bail were made out, even as it stated that nothing in the order has any bearing on the merits of the case. The .Due to this financial skulduggery, faith in this premier financial institution i.e. NSE may have been severely shaken and dented.Special CBI Court..Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Trideep Pais with advocates Parminder Singh, Vishnu Tallapagada and Sanjeevi appeared for the accused.Senior Substitute Public Prosecutor Rajan Dahiya and advocate VK Sharma appeared for the respondent authorities..The case stemmed from a February 11 order of SEBI found that she indulged in financial misdeed relating to fixation and frequent revision of compensation of Anand Subramanian in a disproportionate manner in cahoots with whom she claimed to be a 'Siddha Purusha'.Subramanian had also been appointed Chief Strategic Advisor (CSA) and later re-designated as the Group Operating Officer (GOO) and an Advisor to the MD by Ramkrishna.Ramkrishna’s bizarre claim of having been guided by a Siddha Purusha/ Yogi dwelling in Himalayas in making her professional decisions did not find favour with the SEBI, which had barred her from associating with any market infrastructure institution or any intermediary registered with SEBI for a period of three years.Ramkrishna was also found to have shared confidential information relating to NSE with the unknown 'Siddha Purusha'. The market regulator had, therefore, saddled Ramrkishna with a penalty of ₹3 crores and Subramanian with a penalty of ₹2 crores.A penalty of ₹2 crores was also imposed on NSE which was also barred from launching any new product for a period of six months. Penalties were also imposed on then NSE vice-chairperson Ravi Narain, J Ravichandran (then president and company secretary of NSE), and VR Narasimhan, the chief regulatory officer.The SEBI order noted that Ramkrishna did not dispute contents of certain email sent by her to a Siddha Purusha/Yogi who she claimed, dwells in Himalayas and was the spiritual force guiding her for the past 20 years.The said email correspondence pointed to Ramkrishna making professional decisions as per the guidance received from the unknown 'Siddha Purusha'.The SEBI in its order specifically noted two emails exchanged between them.First, an email dated September 5, 2015, from the 'Siddha Purusha' to Ramkrishna - “SOM, If I had the opportunity to be a person on Earth then Kanchan is the perfect fit. Ashirvadhams. SIRONMANI.”Second, an email dated December 30, 2015 from Ramkrishna to the 'Siddha Purusha' stated - “Struggle is I have always seen THEE through G, and challenged to on my own realise the difference.”From the said emails, SEBI concluded it was apparent that Ramkrishna held Subramanian in the same light as her spiritual force, the 'Siddha Purusha'.Hence, it was not surprising that Subramanian received frequent arbitrary increase in compensation even though there was no evidence of any performance evaluation, the SEBI had ruled. It added that it was unfortunate that the head of the leading and largest stock exchange in India has had to resort to such attempts to justify her actions of sharing confidential information pertaining to NSE with an unknown person.Ramkrishna was the first woman Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of NSE, a position she held from April 1, 2013 to December 2, 2016.She had resigned after the manner of appointment of Subramanian as GOO became public..[Read Order]