"Continued detention necessary:" Delhi High Court cancels bail granted to Shivinder Mohan Singh in Religare Finvest EOW case

The Delhi High Court on Monday cancelled the bail granted to Religare promoter, Shivinder Mohan Singh in Religare Finvest case being probed by Delhi Police (Religare Finvest vs State). .The order was passed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait in a plea preferred by Religare Finvest against the bail granted by the trial court..The Court opined that bail in the present case would adversely affect a progress of the case as well as the trust of the people in criminal justice system. It said,"In the present case, nature and gravity of accusation against respondent No.2 (Shivinder Singh) is serious. The grant of bail in a case involving cheating, criminal breach of interest by an agent of such a large magnitude of money, affecting a very large number of people would also have an adverse impact not only on the progress of the case but also on the trust of the criminal justice system that people repose.. ..continued detention of respondent No.2 in this FIR case is necessary not only to unearth the conspiracy hatched by him, but also to derive out/ trace the siphoned money which he has credited for his personal benefit.".The present FIR pertains to Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL)'s complaint against Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) promoters Malvinder Singh, his brother Shivinder Singh, CMD Godhwani and several others for siphoning off and misappropriating funds to the tune of over Rs 2,000 crore. .Seeking cancellation of bail, RFL argued that the FIR pertains to serious economic offence of high magnitude and the offence under Section 409 IPC has been invoked, which is punishable with imprisonment up to life..It was submitted that the bail applications by co-accused Rajender Prasad Aggarwal and Malvinder Mohan Singh had already been dismissed by the trial court on account of the gravity of offence. .It was inter alia also pointed out that as per the charge sheet, after Shivinder came on Board as the Director of RFL, corporate loans/ money was diverted to his own company, RHC Holdings Pvt. Ltd..The chargesheet also noted that the directors of shell/dummy companies were old acquaintances of Singh brothers and followers of Radha Swami Satsang. .The claim that Shivinder had retired from active life and went to Radha Swami Satsang, Beas instead were contradicted by the board minutes and emails on record, it was further emphasized..Counsel for Shivinder argued that the bail order did not suffer from any illegality or perversity and since supplementary charge sheet had been filed, no further investigation was required and his detention was not necessary..It was submitted that no specific role had been attributed to Shivinder in the chargesheet and he could not be held to be vicariously liable for the alleged act by the other co-accused..The Court opined that although a court is not required to go into the merits of the prosecution case at the time of bail, it is nonetheless "expected to judiciously apply its mind as to whether a prima facie case against the accused is made out and his continued detention in judicial custody would serve any purpose". .A court also has to bear in mind the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged and the punishment prescribed, the Court added. .In view of the above aspects, the Court opined that it did "not find substance" in the trial court's findings while granting bail in the present case. .The Court observed, ".. learned trial court has failed to take note of the fact that offences alleged are serious in nature ..(It) should have borne in mind the peculiarity of fraud and conspiracy involved in this case and refrained itself from passing a blanket order releasing respondent No.2 on bail. No doubt on the premise that investigation is complete and accused is behind bars for some time and that trial shall take time, bail can be granted but only when the offences alleged are of lesser magnitude. However, the trial court by rendering such an opinion in the present case, lost sight of the enormity of the offence alleged against respondent No.2.".The Court further recorded that Shivinder Singh had "absolute control" over REL and "put RFL in poor financial condition by way of disbursing the loans to the entities having no financial standing", which caused a "direct loss to the shareholders of REL". .Whether Shivinder can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the company shall be tested during trial, the Court clarified. .The Court also stated that Shivinder's claim that he had taken retirement from active life and was in Radha Swami Satsang, Beas was controverted by the prosecution, which "casts a doubt" that if released on bail, there may a "conspiracy to tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses". .Considering the above discussion, the Court held that the bail order suffered from serious infirmities, resulting in miscarriage of justice. .Appeal against Delhi High Court order granting bail to Shivinder in money laundering case is pending before Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur with Advocates Sandeep D. Das, Siddharth Sharma, Harsh Gautam, Aishwarya Singh, Shashwat Sarin appeared for RFL. .APP G.M. Farooqui appeared for State. Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal with Advocates Shri Singh, Abhishek Singh, Padma Venkataraman, Abhinav Sekhri, Arshiya Ghose appeared for Shivinder. .[Read the order]