[Religare fraud] Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to former executive director Francis Daniel Lee

The Delhi High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to Francis Daniel Lee, the former executive director of Religare Enterprise Limited and one of the prime accused in the Religare fraud case [Francis Daniel Lee v State]..Single-judge Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that Lee has been evading arrests despite being served notices and a non-bailable warrant has also been issued against him..Justice Prasad said that the accusations against Lee are of grave nature and power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail in economic offences must be exercised sparingly as these offences stand on a different footing due to their effect on the economic fabric of society.“Therefore, granting anticipatory bail at this juncture may not only have a negative impact on the investigation in the case, but may also affect the faith that is reposed in the criminal justice system,” the judgment said..Lee had approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest in two First Information Reports (FIRs) that have been registered against him.While the first FIR relates to him siphoning off funds from the Religare to the tune of ₹3.39 crores, the other accuses him of forging stamp and surreptitiously executing a settlement agreement in January 2018 that discharged the liability of the accused companies to pay ₹150 crores to Religare..The Court agreed with the State’s stand that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required not only to recover the large sums of money that have allegedly been cheated but also to shed light on the role of other co-conspirators.“This Court must also keep in mind that the petitioner is the main accused in the instant FIRs and there is a strong likelihood of him evading arrest and not cooperating in the investigation, as has been exhibited in the past,” it said..It further observed that it is well settled that ordinarily, arrest is part of the investigation process intended to secure several purposes and therefore, the nature and seriousness of the offence has to be taken into account before granting anticipatory bail.“There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of investigation. Therefore, factors such as nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, context of the events leading to the said charges, reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses, likelihood of presence being secured during trial, etc. must be taken into account while deciding an application for anticipatory bail,” the Court said..The Court therefore, dismissed the bail applications..While advocate Shree Prakash Sinha appeared for Lee, State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Amit Chadha.The complainant company (Religare) was represented by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur along with advocates Sandeep D. Das, Sitesh Mukherjee, Shashwat Sarin, and Harsh Gautam..[Read Judgment]