New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted bail to former Religare group CFO in a case related to the alleged siphoning of money to the tune of ₹ 2,397 crore from Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL).
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh noted that the charge sheet stood filed in the case and all material as well as evidence was documentary in nature and allowed the bail application by Krishnan Subramanian on a personal bond of ₹ one lakh with two sureties each of the like amount.
The judge further observed that the applicant is not a flight risk, is a permanent resident of Delhi, has clean antecedents, and has been in jail since December 2021 and that other co-accused persons have also been enlarged on bail.
The court also included several conditions on the applicant, including providing his contact details, surrendering his passport, and not leaving the country without the permission of the concerned court and said that As per the complaint in the case by the new management of Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL), certain officials having absolute control of Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL) and its subsidiaries put RFL in poor financial condition by disbursing loans to entities having no financial standings and these entities willfully defaulted in repayments and caused wrongful loss to RFL to the huge money.
It was also said that the Reserve Bank of India pointed out some discrepancies concerning the top borrowers of RFL, alleging that there was interlinkage between the borrowers as funds were routed from one borrower to another; and the loan amounts ultimately were coming to the group companies of RFL.
The applicant sought bail on the ground that when the alleged round-tripping took place, he was not working with RFL or REL throughout his limited tenure as Group CFO, he worked strictly under the guidance and directions of the Board of Directors and there was no prima facie case against him.
The bail application was opposed by the prosecution which said that given the sensitive nature of the matter and the large sums of money involved, there was a strong possibility of the applicant missing and not facing trial.
