‘Continued detention necessary to unearth conspiracy’: Delhi HC sets aside bail to former Religare promoter Shivinder

‘Continued detention necessary to unearth conspiracy’: Delhi HC sets aside bail to former Religare promoter Shivinder


The Delhi High Court Monday set aside the bail granted to former Religare Enterprises promoter Shivinder Mohan Singh in a case pertaining to alleged misappropriation of funds at Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL), observing that his continued detention was necessary to unearth the conspiracy hatched by him.

Judge Suresh Kumar Kait set aside the bail noting that the trial court’s March 3 order “suffers from serious infirmities, resulting in miscarriage of justice.”

“Moreover, continued detention of respondent No.2 (Shivinder) 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 High Court said.

During the hearing, RFL, through its senior advocate Mohit Mathur, told the court that the sessions judge who granted bail “has consciously not taken into consideration the merits of the case and the order releasing respondent No.2 on bail is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions”.

RFL’s legal team submitted that the “FIR in question pertains to serious economic offence of high magnitude where huge public money to the tune of approximately Rs.2,397 has been siphoned away at the behest of respondent No.2 in collusion with his brother Malvinder Mohan Singh and other co-accused, for their personal benefit.”

Opposing this, senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal, who appeared for Shivinder, submitted to the court that the “trial court was well cognizant of the merits of the case, which have been noted at length in the impugned order and so, it does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.”

The High Court said that “no doubt at the time of grant of bail, the court is not required to go into the merits of the prosecution case…but the court is 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.”

“In the light of aforesaid, this Court does not find substance in the findings returned by the court below in the present case,” the High Court said.

The High Court said that the “trial court has failed to take note of the fact that offences alleged are serious in nature and rather than taking into account the factors that respondent No.2 is behind bars for more than one year and that investigation is complete, however, 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.”


Source link


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Share This