Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order reserved on : 24 June 2024
Order pronounced on : 26 June 2024
+ W.P.(CRL) 1879/2024
DR.SHIVINDER MOHAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Aditya Dewan, Mr. Shiven
Varma, Ms. Neeha Nagpal and
Mr. Vishvendra Tomar, Advs.
versus
SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Diwedi, CGSC
with Mr. Piyush Kumar, Sr.
Prosecutor, Mr. Anand Kumar,
Asst. Director, Mr. Vibhav
Singh and Ms. Pinky Pawar,
Advs. for R-1/SFIO
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
O R D E R
% 24.06.2024
1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section
1
482 of the Cr.P.C. read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2024 passed in
MISC/DJ/ASJ No.218/2024 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
03& Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, South West
District, New Delhi ( for short ‘learned Special Judge’,) whereby the
1
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
2
prayer of the petitioner for suspension of LOC and permission to
travel abroad for the period from 14.06.2024 to 04.07.2024 and then
again from 20.08.2024 to 10.09.2024, was declined.
2. The present petition was instituted on 07.06.2024 and notice
3
was issued to the respondents viz., respondent No.1-SFIO and
respondent No.2-Bureau of Immigration, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India. A reply has already been filed on behalf of the
respondent No.1, which is the main contesting party.
3. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the investigation by the SFIO into the
affairs of Fortis Healthcare Limited [“ FHL ”] and Religare Enterprises
Limited [“ REL ”] and other sister concerns besides role of various
individuals associated with such companies including that of the
petitioner commenced from 17.02.2018 purportedly under Section
212(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 but till date no complaint/final
report has been filed by the SFIO against the petitioner. It is
submitted that the petitioner has not been arrested so far and even in
December, 2021 when an application was filed by the petitioner for
surrendering himself before the Court, the same was opposed by the
SFIO, and rather, in its reply, it was stated that the status of the
petitioner was not that of an accused “as of then”.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner has extended full cooperation
at all times during the investigation by the SFIO. It is further
submitted that the petitioner‟s two sons, namely Mr. Anhad P. Singh
2
Look Out Circular
3
Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
4
and Mr. Vivaan P. Singh are studying in the UK at University
College London and Durham University, respectively and they are
completing their education in the concerned courses in June, 2024;
and that the petitioner wishes to attend the graduation ceremony of his
son Vivaan P. Singh on completion of his Bachelor‟s degree in
Physics and Maths from Durham University, which is scheduled on
01.07.2024 as also the graduation ceremony of his other son Mr.
Anhad P. Singh on completion of his Bachelor‟s degree in Maths and
Economics from University College, London, which is scheduled on
02.09.2024.
5. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has invited the attention of
this Court to the judicial orders passed by the different Courts in the
criminal proceedings sub-judice against the petitioner, thereby
granting him permission to travel abroad, for attending the aforesaid
events, the details of which are as under:-
(i) FIR No. 50/2019 PS EOW South East under Section
419/420/120-B IPC by the learned ASJ-02, South East, Saket
Courts, Delhi;
(ii) Misc. Crl. Appl. No. 366/2024 under Section 44 of the
5
PML Act in complaint No. ECIR/DLZO/II/05/2019 vide order
dated 22.05.2024 by the learned ASJ-02, South East, Saket Courts,
Delhi;
(iii) FIR No. 189/2019 PS EOW vide order dated 27.05.2024 by
the learned CMM, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi;
(iv) Special Case No. 1044/2020 and 1045/2020 by the SEBI
Special Judge, Greater Mumbai vide order dated 21.03.2024;
(v) Ct. Case 4162/2020 titled Yes Bank Ltd. v. Oscar
Investments Ltd. by the learned MM (NI Act)-03, New Delhi
District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide order dated
18.04.2024;
(vi) Ct. Case titled as India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. v. RHC
4
United Kingdom
5
Prevention of Money Laundering Act
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
Holding Private Limited vide order dated 04.05.2024 by the
learned JMFC, Gurugram.
6. Needless to state that reliefs in the nature of grant of bail and
permission to go abroad have been granted subject to certain
conditions, which are not relevant for consideration, except for
buttressing the plea that permission to go abroad has been granted in
all other pending cases before different Courts except by the learned
Special Judge.
7. Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate also pointed out that even
the co-accused Mr. Kavi Arora, who is under investigation by the
SFIO has been granted permission to go abroad in W.P. (Crl.)
12852/2023 by this Court vide orders dated 06.11.2023, 22.03.2024,
01.05.2024 and lastly on 17.05.2024.
8. It is vehemently urged that the investigation has been ongoing
for the last more than six years but the petitioner is no longer in
control of the affairs of the companies which are under investigation.
It has been urged that the wife of the petitioner has been residing with
him in India all along and only recently she has gone to the UK to
attend the graduation ceremony of her son inter alia acknowledging
that all the four sons of the petitioner are presently living abroad.
9. Attention of this Court is also invited to a short affidavit of the
petitioner dated 18.06.2024 filed pursuant to directions of the learned
Single Judge(Vacation Judge) of this Court dated 14.06.2024, to the
effect that he is neither a share holder nor a Director in „REL‟ and/or
any of its group/associate companies; and that he was a
shareholder/Director in RHC Holding Private Limited [“ RHC ”],
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
which was a holding company of „REL‟. However, RHC itself lost
control of „REL‟ in 2017-2018, consequent to which the deponent
stepped down from the Board of „REL‟, which fact is also reflected in
the reply of the SFIO vide paragraph 3.6 at page 11.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner has no overseas business
interests, much less in the UK. It is also pointed that in the period
prior to the commencement of investigation by the SFIO or around the
same time, had travelled to Singapore frequently, from April, 2018 till
January, 2019 and infact travelled in January, 2019 to UK as well and
returned back to India, and thus, he can be branded as a „flight risk‟.
11. Challenging, albeit half-heartedly the legality of the “LOC”
itself at the instance of the SFIO, it is also deposed vide paragraph (4)
of the short affidavit dated 18.06.2004 as under:
“4. That the Deponent further submits that the Deponent does not
have any immovable properties in his name nor he has any source
of income. In any case, in the execution proceedings filed by
Daichi before this Hon'ble Court, the Deponent‟s movable and
immovable assets, if any, have already been attached. The
Applicant‟s sister-in-law (Mrs. Arundhati Singh) and mother-in-
law (Mrs. Rajshree Singh) however jointly own Unit bearing No.
th
604 situated at 7 floor, Plot No. 212, Block III, Tulsiani
Chambers, Mumbai, 40021 and the original title deeds of the said
immovable property can be deposited before this Hon'ble Court in
the from of security. The value of the said immovable property is
in the range of 4 cores approx. and the in-laws family‟s share is
3/4"
12. Per contra, Ms. Arunima Diwedi, learned Central Government
Standing Counsel has opposed the reliefs sought by the petitioner
hammer and tongs, justifying the legality of the impugned order dated
05.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, pointing out that the
plea that surrender of the petitioner was opposed by the SFIO is ill-
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
conceived, inasmuch as the petitioner during the relevant time was
under the custody of different agencies and surrender in the present
investigation would not have been purposeful. It is submitted that the
petitioner, pursuant to directions of the learned Single Judge of this
Court dated 14.06.2004, has given a vague reply stating that he does
not own any properties in India or elsewhere. It is vehemently urged
that the said deposition (referred above) is false, inasmuch as it was
the petitioner who was holding 99% shareholding in Shiv Holding
Private Limited(“ SHPL ”) which was holding 50% stakes in RHC and
it was pointed out that the investigation has so far revealed that funds
have been diverted to various off shore companies.
13. Attention of the Court has been invited to the Income Tax
Returns [“ ITR ”] filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2022-
23 (filed on 28.07.2022) wherein the petitioner himself has accounted
for his shareholding in different companies based in India as well as
abroad. At this juncture, it is pertinent to indicate that a careful perusal
of the ITR shows that the petitioner has himself claimed that he has
shareholding in three companies based abroad viz. in Forthill
International Limited and RHC based on the book value of the
shareholding.
14. Learned Standing Counsel also pointed out that during the
investigation, it has come forth that equity and preference shares of
RCML were been found to be long term investment in the companies
viz., Religare Capital Market International (Mauritius) Limited;
Religare Capital Market International (UK) Limited, Tobler (UK)
Limited, Religare Investment Holding (UK) Limited apart from
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
Religare Capital Market (Europe) Limited based in UK; and Religare
Capital Market (UK) Limited apart from having such long term
6
investment in other sister concerns based in Singapore, USA ,
Hongkong and China.
15. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that although the
petitioner has justifiable emotional and personal reasons to attend the
graduation ceremony of his sons, the paramount economic interest of
the company cannot be brushed aside, particularly when there are
prima facie findings of the investigation carried so far suggesting that
more than Rs. 1800 crores have been siphoned off out of India. In this
regard, learned Standing Counsel alluded to the observations by the
learned Special Judge vide paragraphs (32) and (33), which read as
under:-
“32. The interest of the nation, whether economic or strategic, is
paramount. In the present case, economic/national interest of the
country is involved. Therefore, this case falls under the exception.
In this case, SFIO has not disclosed properly as to whether LOC
has been reviewed or not but in the backdrop of facts discussed
above, this fact does not assume much significance. The
application has been moved by the applicant for attending
graduation ceremony of his son. Three other children of applicant
are already in U.K., one of whom is also working/running business
there. Though it cannot be said that attending graduation ceremony
of his son by the applicant is not important, however, a balance has
to be struck between national interest and the individual interest.
The national interest vis-à-vis individual interest of the country has
to be given the priority.
33. The mere fact that all other Courts have granted permission to
the applicant to travel abroad does not have any bearing on this
case. Each case has to be assessed separately on its facts. In those
cases, chargesheet has been filed and applicant is already on bail
whereas in the present case, the investigation is on going and in its
midst, where the complete role of the applicant into the affairs of
6
United States of America
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
companies under investigation and its subsidiaries is yet to be
ascertained. The investigation conducted so far by the IO indicates
that the applicant is a serious flight risk.”
16. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel
has relied on the decisions in Sumer Singh Salkan v. Assistant
7 8
Director, CBI ; Hemanta Kumar Banka v. UOI ; and Mr. Chaitya
9
Shah v. UOI and it was vehemently urged that in case liberty is
granted to the petitioner to go abroad, in all likelihood he would not
return to India since his entire family is now happily settled abroad
with sound financial base.
17. In rebuttal, Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Advocate has reiterated
that the petitioner does not own any properties abroad much less in the
UK or anywhere else. It submitted that that petitioner is willing to
provide sufficient securities so as to ensure that he would be returning
back to India after attending the graduation ceremony of his sons.
Heavy reliance is placed on the plethora of judicial orders passed by
the learned Judges of the District Courts as well as orders of this
10
Court, particularly Sanjana Desai v. Bank of India ; Uday Jayant
11 12
Desai v. UOI ; Parvin Juneja v. Directorate of Enforcement ;
13
Raghav Bahl v. Enforcement Directorate Ministry of Finance ;
14
and Prateek Chitkara v. UOI .
7
2010 SCC OnLine Delhi 2699
8
Writ Petition (Crl.) 53/2021vide judgment dated 23.02.2021 by Calcutta High Court
9
Criminal Writ Petition No. 3058/2021 vide judgment dated 17.11.2021
10
W.P. (C) 1872/2021 dated 01.03.2021
11
W.P. (C) 10540/2022 dated 02.05.2023
12
Crl. M.C. 5143/2023 dated 09.08.2023
13
W.P. (Crl.) 2392/2021 dated 22.08.2023
14
W.P. (C) 10998/2022 dated 26.09.2023
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
ANALYSIS & DECISION
18. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the elaborate
submissions advanced at the Bar. I have meticulously perused the
relevant records of the case as well as the case laws cited at the Bar.
19. It is borne out from the record that SFIO is investigating into
the affairs of the „FHL‟ and „REL‟ and other associated/sister
concerns in exercise of its plenary powers under Section 212(4) of the
Companies Act, 2013 in larger “public interest” as the matter involves
allegations of fraud, misappropriation and siphoning off of the funds
through use of multiple conduit companies, ever-greening of loans
from the financial institutions and alleged losses caused to the
companies and the public.
20. It is also brought to the fore that the petitioner was a promoter
of „REL‟ having 16.31% shareholding through „RHC‟, of which he
was the non-executive director from 13.12.2004 to 06.04.2010.
Thereafter, he held the post of non-executive director as well as Vice
Chairman from 29.07.2016 to 14.02.2018 and was the Managing
Director of „FHL‟ from 13.11.2003 till 01.01.2016. Thereafter, he
held the post of Director w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till 08.02.2018 thereby,
controlling and managing the key operations of the „REL‟ and „FHL‟
throughout the said period. Evidently, the alleged cases of
misappropriation and siphoning off of funds occurred during his
tenure in such capacities which resulted in losses assessed
approximately to be Rs. 3780/- & Rs. 450 crores to „REL‟ and „FHL‟
respectively.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
21. It is also evident from the records that when instances of
financial improprieties came to light, the petitioner resigned from
„REL‟ on 14.02.2018 and from „FHL‟ on 08.02.2018. The plea raised
by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that he has bonafidely
stepped down from the Board of the aforesaid companies and has no
control in the interest or stakes in the aforesaid companies, is a matter
of trial but then, his plea that he neither has any immovable properties
in his name nor has any source of income in the affidavit dated
18.06.2024, is not palatable considering his ITRs for the assessment
years 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, which prima facie bring out that
he has assets/shareholding in the form of equity & preference shares in
the company viz., Forthill International Limited, RHC Holding Pte.
Limited situated in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and Singapore.
22. As highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel, the
investigation conducted so far also brings out that during the relevant
time i.e. 2010-11 to 2017-18 when the petitioner was at the helm of
affairs of „REL‟ and „FHL‟, it had invested funds amounting to Rs.
700/- crores in wholly owned subsidiary, namely Religare Capital
Market Limited [“ RCML ”] and subsequently RCML invested these
funds in its stepped down subsidiary, namely Religare Capital Market
International (Mauritius) Limited [“ RCMIML ”], based in Mauritius.
The investigation also prima facie brings out that such investments
were made in the „RCMIML‟ during the financial year 2011-12 to
financial year 2016-17.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
23. It is pertinent to note that evidently, a Tripartite Agreement
dated 13.02.2012 had been entered between RCH Holding Limited,
„REL‟ and RCML pursuant to which, RCH Holding Limited was
enjoined upon to provide financial support to „RCML‟ for its financial
commitments till 30.09.2015. It is urged that the terms of agreement
were such that they were apparently prejudicial to the interests of
„REL‟, which was a public company. As a matter of fact, the books of
account and voluminous documents with regard to as many as 37
subsidiaries of REL Group of Companies since 2013-14 have been the
subject matter of investigation and at the cost of repetition, some of
the companies are based in USA, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Mexico
apart from UK and Mauritius.
24. Without delving into the merits of the allegations, the long and
short of the aforesaid discussion is that the deposition by the petitioner
in his affidavit dated 18.06.2024 that he has no assets or properties in
India is manifestly not bringing forth the correct facts. The deposition
is flawed with incomplete disclosure, and thus, not inspiring
confidence. The aforesaid narrative coupled with the documents
placed on the record invite a strong inference that the petitioner has a
huge financial base outside India and he has not come to the Court
with clean hands and that by itself disentitles him to grant of any
discretionary relief.
25. Although much mileage is sought to be drawn from the judicial
orders passed in other proceedings pending against the petitioner, as
referred hereinabove, the magnitude of the investigation being
conducted by the SFIO in public interest so as to safeguard the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
economic and national interest of the country which stands at a much
higher pedestal. Indeed, attending the graduation ceremony of his son,
which event is a once in a lifetime experience, is a momentous
occasion in one‟s life and the sentiments of fatherly love for the son
cannot be brushed aside, but the same has to be given way in order to
further the paramount national interest and fundamentally safeguard
the interests of the stakeholders who have been deprived of their hard
earned investments in „REL‟ and other companies.
26. To sum up, this Court finds that having regard to the fact that
prima facie it appears that the petitioner has sizeable assets and
properties, directly or indirectly, outside India in foreign jurisdictions
as discussed hereinabove and there is a strong inference that if liberty
to go abroad is granted to him, he may not come back to India to face
the investigation and trial, as and when it commences.
27. The plea by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that
the petitioner is willing to provide sufficient security by nominating
any member of the family to remain in India coupled with the fact that
the mother and mother-in-law of the petitioner are already residing in
India, is only noted to be rejected. To my mind, any such disposition
would be utterly sham and illusionary since in the event the petitioner
misuses the liberty to go abroad, what would the SFIO or the State do
with such human security except to raise a plea to forfeit their
undertakings/bonds, which would be insufficient.
28. The plea by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that
superior Courts have granted permission to go abroad wherein
thousands of crores of rupees have been allegedly siphoned off, does
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
not cut any ice either. The decision in the case of Sanjana Desai
(supra) was one where the accused was facing investigation by the
15
CBI and permission was granted by the Court to enable the accused
to have medical treatment in USA/UK. The decision in the case of
Uday Jayant Desai (supra) was one where the accused was facing
proceedings under Section 420/467/468/471 read with Section 120-B
of the IPC besides 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and the petitioner-accused was merely a director/guarantor
in some of the accused-companies. It was under such circumstances
that his son stood as a surety for the accused also undertaking that he
shall not leave the country while the petitioner-accused was abroad.
The case of Parvin Juneja (supra) was one where the petitioner
facing prosecution in respect of certain offences under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was shown
to have travelled abroad on as many as 20 occasions in the past with
the permission of the Court and it is in such circumstances that he was
allowed to travel to Canada for the purpose of admission of his son for
15 days. The decision in the case of Prateek Chitkara (supra) was
one where the petitioner was facing prosecutions under the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and the Black Money Act, 2015 and considering his
young age, family ties in India and his otherwise clean financial track
record, the LOC issued against him was allowed to be suspended so
as to enable him to travel abroad for a limited period.
29. Indeed, in the instant case as espoused by the learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner, although he has travelled abroad to
15
Central Bureau of Investigation
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08
Singapore and UK during the period April, 2018 to February, 2019,
however, the said visits had taken place when the investigation by the
SFIO had barely commenced.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, unhesitatingly, this Court
finds that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner seeking permission to
go abroad to attend the graduation ceremony of his two sons on the
scheduled dates cannot be allowed. There are sufficient grounds to
raise an inference that in case such liberty is granted to the petitioner,
he may abuse the same and may not come back to India so as to
scuttle the entire investigation and the ensuing process. Thus, this
Court finds no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by
the learned Special Judge in passing the impugned order dated
05.06.2024.
31. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 26, 2024
Sadiq
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (CRL.) 1879/2024 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:26.06.2024
15:59:08