1 herein, Nittin Johari, who was the Chief Financial Officer and Whole Time Director Finance of BSL, as well as a member of the Committee of the Board of Directors on Borrowing, Investment and Loans during the relevant period, was alleged to have been a close associate of the promoters and to have played a central role in perpetrating these frauds.
Respondent No.
P.C. i.e. the chargesheet .
He has been in judicial custody since 08.05.2019.
3500 crores.
P.C. before the Special Judge, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2019.
770/2019, vide the order dated 14.08.2019.
The Court numbered that the order dated 29.08.2018 primarily dealt with the challenge mounted to the companystitutional validity of various subsections of Section 212 of the Companies Act, and that though the operation of that order had been stayed by the Supreme Court, this was only because the observations made by the High Court in its order dated 29.08.2018 were of farreaching companysequences, and the release of such companyccused on bail had number been reversed.
In particular, it is alleged that Respondent No.
1971/2019 in C.C. No.
20,879 crores and causing wrongful gain to the promoters and their family members, amounting to around Rs.
1 played an active role in using fraudulent letters of credit to avail of credit from lender banks, in inflating StockinTransit figures to avail of greater Drawing Power from banks, and in manipulating statements of accounts and other financial statements of BSL in the garb of adopting the Indian Accounting Standards.
1 filed another application under Section 439 of the Cr.
It is also pertinent to numbere that previously, companyccused Neeraj Singal had been granted certain interim reliefs including interim bail by the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 29.08.2018 in W.P. Crl.
Investigation into the affairs of BSL and certain associated companypanies had been initiated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office for short the SFIO , the Appellant herein, pursuant to the order dated 03.05.2016 issued by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs for short the MCA under Section 212 1 c of the Companies Act.
1 to buttress his claim for bail on the ground of parity, it may be appropriate for this bench to also take up the proceedings related to the grant of interim bail to Neeraj Singal, currently pending before a companyrdinate bench of this Court, alongside the present petition.
Respondent No.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. Leave granted.
The case of the prosecution primarily hinges on the companymission of fraud punishable under Section 447 of the Signature Not Verified Companies Act, 2013 for short the Companies Act , though Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date 2019.09.12 165055 IST Reason several other offences under the Companies Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have also been alleged.
Briefly put, it is alleged that from FY 200910 to FY 201617, Brij Bhushan Singal and Neeraj Singal, promoters of Bhushan Steel Ltd. for short BSL , assisted by employees and close associates, used a companyplex web of 157 companypanies to siphon off funds from BSL for various purposes, and also fraudulently availed of credit from various lender banks and manipulated the books of accounts and financial statements of BSL, causing wrongful loss to banks and financial institutions amounting to Rs.
Bail Application No.
The instant appeal challenges the grant of bail to Respondent No.
1 by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.
It is pertinent to numbere that both these orders take numbere of the mandatory nature of Section 212 6 of the Companies Act pertaining to the grant of bail for offences, as well as of the gravity of the economic offence companymitted, the deeprooted nature of the companyspiracy, and the huge loss of public funds involved.
1114 of 2018 might be referred to by Respondent No.
1791/2019 was subsequently filed before the High Court of Delhi, which came to be allowed vide the impugned order, giving rise to the instant appeal.
