Delhi High Court - Orders
Mukund Gajanan Sapre vs State on 22 June, 2020
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
Via Video Conferencing
$~3(A)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 1196/2020
MUKUND GAJANAN SAPRE ....Applicant
Through: Mr. N.Hariharn Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Amit Dubey Adv.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M. Farooqui, APP;
Mr. PS Singal, Adv for complainant.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 22.06.2020
1. The present application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking regular bail has been filed by one Mr. Mukund Sapre, a former Director in IL&FS Rail Ltd. which is a subsidiary company of Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS) engaged in surface transportation infrastructure projects. Mr Sapre was one of the 22 accused persons in FIR No. 0253/2018 under Section 409/467/468/471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) registered at PS Economic Offences Wing on 06.12.2018.
2. The FIR filed by Mr. Ashish Begwani impleaded IL& FS Rail Ltd. as accused no. 1 and primarily contains two allegations against the applicant, firstly that the applicant along with other Directors of the accused no.1 company conducted several business meetings from 2010-2015 with the complainant during the course of which, based on their misrepresentations, the complainant was allured to make investments of Rs. 99,72,93,680/- and 65,50,00,000/- in the accused no.1 Company. The second allegation is that the applicant was one of the directors of accused no.1 company, which has evolved a complex, heavily looped system of fraudulent practices in order to garner cash inflow and trick prospective investors by showing them manipulated data and account books.
3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr Hariharan, in support of the present application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and had, in fact, no role to play in the incidents narrated in the FIR considering that his role in the accused company was limited and did not involve any decision making in the daily affairs of either of the accused companies. By placing reliance on paragraph 82 of the Complaint itself, he submits that Mr Begwani himself has squarely placed the blame of the alleged fraud on accused nos. 3 to 6 by deeming them to be the mastermind of the entire operation. There are no specific allegations which have been levelled against the applicant and the vague allegations which are, in fact, levelled against him have not been substantiated till date. This, he urges, clearly shows the applicant was neither instrumental in intention nor in act, in carrying out the illegal activities alleged in the complaint.
4. Mr Hariharan submits that the applicant is a highly qualified man of long standing professional repute and a Life member of several prestigious commissions including inter alia the PPP (Roads)
- United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Indian Roads Congress, International Road Federation Environment Committee, Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He submits that merely because the applicant was a part of the business meetings conducted in order to discuss the complainant's possible investments in the accused no.1 company, does not imply that there was some bigger conspiracy of alluring the complainant's investment. He reiterates that the applicant's role in the accused no.1 company was limited to providing inputs and suggestions in the Board meetings and attending any meeting where his attendance had been mandated. The final decision on matters of import was placed on the shoulders of the senior management of the company, of which the applicant was not a part. He submits that in any event, the onus of conducting due diligence prior to investing in the accused no.1 company was on the complainant and, in the absence of any coercion, the sole responsibility of the complainant's decision to invest any amounts in the company cannot now be affixed on the applicant.
5. Mr. Hariharan submits that the applicant has already been in custody since 07.01.2020 and has remained incarcerated for six months, as of today. He submits that the applicant is of an advanced age of 60 years and has a severely aggravated medical history of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, neuropathy lumbar disc herniation, kidney ailments, acute coronary syndrome, syncope, persistent hydroureteronephrosis. As a result, the entire period during which the applicant has been in custody has been fraught with hospital visits. He prays that on medical grounds, this Court extend mercy to the applicant and permit him to be released on bail, especially during this period of COVID-19 pandemic when the applicant belongs to a group vulnerable to contracting the virus. He submits that the applicant's continued incarceration now comes at the cost of endangering his life.
6. Mr. Hariharan further submits that Mr.R.L. Kabra, a co-accused of the applicant and a fellow former director of the accused no.1 company, was released on bail on 24.01.2020 by the Additional Sessions Judge, South East, Saket, which order has not been assailed till date. He submits that in fact, Mr. Kabra's role in the affairs of the company and its alleged mismanagement was greater since he was a part of the Committee of Auditors in the accused no.1 company. Mr. Hariharan submits that even on the ground of roles and responsibilities discharged in the accused no.1 company, the applicant is on a better footing and should be extended parity with Mr. Kabra by being grant bail, especially when it is evident that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate delay of eight years. He prays that for the aforesaid reasons, this Court be pleased to release the applicant on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose grant of bail to the applicant by stating that the allegations against him are of a grave and serious nature. They submit that the applicant was a part of the conspiracy to siphon off large sums of money from the accused no.1 company under various illegal transactions. They further submit that his intimate involvement in the activities of the company is evident from the fact that he was a director of the accused no.1 company IL&FS Rail Ltd., being a nominee of the accused no.2 company IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd, and that he was a signatory to the Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.03.2015 executed between the complainant and the accused no.1 company. They also submit that granting bail to the applicant could possibly lead to the applicant jumping bail, tampering with evidence, attempting to threaten witnesses and hampering the investigation. They, therefore, pray that the present application be dismissed.
8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
9. In the present case, it is evident that even as per the allegations in the FIR, it was accused nos. 3 to 6 who took all decisions in the accused no.1 company. The primary allegation against the applicant is that he was present in the meeting when the complainant was allegedly allured to invest in the accused no.1 company in August 2010 and was also a signatory to the Share Purchase Agreement between the complainant and the accused no.2 company. Insofar as the applicant's presence is concerned, it is not even the complainant's case that the applicant was instrumental in any manner in the decisions taken by the accused no.1 company. The complainant has also not denied that the shares, pursuant to the agreement dated 23.03.2015, to which the applicant was a signatory were duly transferred in its name. Therefore, the question whether the complaint is a result of an unsuccessful business endeavour cannot be determined at this stage.
10. Furthermore, neither the learned APP nor the counsel for the complainant have been able to deny that Mr. RL Kabra was not only, like the applicant, a member of the Committee of Directors but he was also a member of the auditing committee. Keeping in view that the applicant has already served six months in custody, his role in the accused no.1 company as compared to the role of Mr. R.L. Kabra, his complete cooperation and support in the investigation thus far, his advanced age, lack of any previous criminal record, and the several medical ailments he suffers from, I find that there is no reason to deny bail to the applicant, as sought for.
11. At this stage, Mr Hariharan submits that since the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai, it may not be possible for him to furnish surety from a permanent resident of Delhi. He, therefore, volunteers to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakh by way of Demand Draft before the Registrar General of this Court, as surety, besides his personal bond of the same amount, as a condition for bail.
12. In view of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is granted bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 subject to him furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent as also depositing a further sum of Rs.5 lakh by way of a Demand Draft with the Registrar General of this Court. The amount deposited with the Registrar General of this Court will be released to the applicant after the conclusion of the proceedings before the learned Trial Court.
13. As the applicant is a permanent resident of Mumbai, it will not be appropriate, while granting bail, to direct him to continue residing in Delhi during the global pandemic of COVID19. Therefore, during this period of bail, while the applicant is granted liberty to return to his residence in Mumbai, he is directed to neither contact any of the prosecution witnesses nor leave the country without obtaining leave of the learned Trial Court. The applicant will fully cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall appear before the Investigating Officer in Delhi/Mumbai, as and when directed. The applicant shall also furnish his mobile phone number to the Investigating Officer and the learned APP, which number will be kept operational all times so that he can be contacted by the authorities, if the need so arises. The applicant is directed to contact the Investigating Officer telephonically, without fail, every Monday either through regular SMS or the medium of whatsapp.
14. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J JUNE 22, 2020 SR