The Allahabad High Court on Thursday refused to grant bail to Uday J. Desai, managing director of Frost International Limited, Kanpur.

This order has been given by Justice Om Prakash-VII, while dismissing the bail application of Uday J. Desai.

The bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant under sections 439 (2) read with section 436(1)(a)&(d) read with provisio to section 212(6) 212(14) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with section 621(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with section 195 CrPC.

It was submitted by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, counsel appearing for Desai, that the applicant is aged about 64 years and is in jail since March 19, 2020.

He has cooperated with the investigating agency. There is no need for his further interrogation, as the investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

Since number of witnesses disclosed in the charge sheet are living out of the country, it will not be possible to conclude the trial expeditiously. Much time will be consumed in serving the summons upon them and also in recording their evidence.

It was further submitted that besides the said witnesses, there are also a number of witnesses who are residing in India.

Hence, there is no chance for an early conclusion of the trial. The entire prosecution case rests upon documentary evidence. There is no chance of tampering or influencing the evidence and witnesses by the applicant.

Rohatgi stated that the applicant was suffering from Covid-19 and was shifted to Lucknow for treatment. Apart from the disease, he also suffered from other diseases for which treatment was continued at Lucknow and thereafter he was shifted to Kanpur.

It was next contended that main accused of Rotomac Group, namely, Vikram Kothari and co-accused in the matter, namely, Sunil Verma and Anoop Wadhera had approached apex Court challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and the apex court granted interim protection to them in their petitions.

It was further stated that no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant behind the bar as applicant is ready to abide the conditions imposed by the Court.

At this juncture, Senior Counsel also referred to provisions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act and further submitted that since applicant is an old and sick person, therefore, bar created under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act will not come in the way of release of applicant on bail.

In reply, Gyan Prakash, Senior Counsel appearing for SFIO (Serious Fraud Investigation Office), submitted that the bail application is not maintainable as applicant has directly approached the Court for regular bail.

Since entire documents annexed with the complaint are not available before the Court, legal mandate required under Section 212(6) of the Companies Act cannot be arrived at before the Court.

The Councel for the SFIO submitted that the trial is going on in the district court of Kanpur. The petitioner should present the bail application there itself, but by not giving the application there, it has been filed directly in the High Court. 

Read Also: Supreme Court allows transfer of Mukhtar Ansari from Punjab to Banda jail in Uttar Pradesh

The bank has lost a total of Rs 7,820 crore by giving fake book of account by the Petitioner, therefore accounts have become non-performing asset (NPA), the counsel said.

“Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that there is no substance in the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the applicant. The applicant has not made out a case for bail. The bail application is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected,” the order reads.

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to a man employed in M/s Hassad Netherland’s, accused in a case for alleged involvement in Money Laundering of Rs. 1000 crores under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

A single-judge bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar has noted, “twin conditions mentioned in Section 45 of the PML Act continue to be struck down as being unconstitutional in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1. The amendment in Section 45 by the Finance Act 2018 is only with respect to substituting the term offence punishable for 3 years with offence under this Act. The said amendment does not revive the twin conditions already struck down by the aforesaid judgment.”

“Since the twin conditions for bail in section 45 of the PML Act have been struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same are neither revived nor resurrected by the Amending Act, therefore, as of today, there is no rigor of said two conditions under original Section 45(l)(ii) of the PML Act for releasing the Petitioner on bail. The provisions of section 439 of CrPC and the conditions therein will only apply in the case of the Petitioner for grant of bail,” said the Court while granting bail.

The Court has also noted, “at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case should be avoided, so that no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced.”

It said, “There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits.”

The court has pronounced its decision on the petition filed by Sai Chandrasekhar, an employee of M/s Hassad Netherland seeking bail in an alleged offence under PMLA for his alleged involvement in a huge account fraud of approximately Rs. 1000 crore.

The Enforcement Directorate had alleged that being an employee of the complainant company Chandrasekhar was aware of the ground realities and despite that he induced the complainant to invest Rs. 750 Crores in M/s Bush Foods Overseas Pvt. Ltd. by purchasing its 69.5% shares. Whereas, Chandrasekhar received a kickback of about Rs. 20 cores, out of which 7 crores have been identified.

The Counsel appearing for the ED submitted that the present case involves the commission of the grave economic offence of laundering of the proceeds of crime.

The Counsel appearing for Chandrasekhar submitted that pursuant to the investigation already stands filed and the investigation qua the petitioner is complete, whereas, in the predicate offence, the charge sheet, and supplementary charge sheet also stands filed.

However, the bench noted that “petitioner in the instant case is in custody since 27.10.2020. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the petitioner is a flight risk… As far as the question of tampering is concerned, the evidence is documentary in nature and the documents and digital evidence is in the custody of the prosecuting agency.”

In furtherance to its observations, the bench allowed bail to Chandrasekhar on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court and has further directed him not to leave the country without the permission of the Special Court.

Read Also: Salman Khan gets relief from Rajasthan HC, hearing in all 3 appeals postponed