Senthilbalaji’s SC verdict can’t be used to seek bail in Company Act fraud case, MHC rejects Surana’s plea

CHENNAI: Dismissing the bail plea of Dinesh Chand Surana’s son, in prison facing economic offence charges, the Madras High Court said the Supreme Court’s order to release minister V Senthilbalaji on bail in the money laundering case could not be a precedent in the case of defrauding banks to the tune of Rs 1,000 crores.

The top court’s bail order pointing out the long period of incarceration to release Senthilbalaji on bail cannot be considered in this present case, wrote Justice AD Jagadish Chandira while dismissing the bail plea.

In Senthilbalaji’s case, the apex court took the decision as the case could be delayed to prove the proceeds of crime for money laundering in the offences cited in the case. In contrast, in the present case, the HC said the offences committed under the Companies Act are not dependent on proving offences under any other Act. So, the concept of long incarceration alone cannot be a ground for the grant of bail, held the judge.

The petitioner, Rahul Dinesh Surana, one of the directors of Surana Industries, is booked under various sections of the Companies Act and section 420, 120 (B) of IPC.

Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) booked Rahul Dinesh Surana, his father Dinesh Chand Surana and 88 others in the case of siphoning out several crores of funds obtained as loans from various banks to the tune of Rs 1,000 crores.

The petitioner’s company had failed to pay the loans and announced liquidation. However, the total assets in the company's name only covered 6 per cent of the total loan amount. The investigation revealed that the petitioner and his had inflated figures of shell companies and obtained loans from several banks. It is alleged that the funds illegally sourced from banks were later siphoned off to various accounts.

The trial is pending before the city civil court.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved the bail plea, citing too long a period of incarceration without a probe getting completed.

Senior counsel PV Balasubramaniam, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that there are a total of 90 accused in the case, and the trial has to take up 125 witnesses and more than 1 lakh pages of documents. The advocate added that if one takes into account such consideration, the possibility of completion of the trial in the near future is bleak. The petitioner is suffering a long period of incarceration, and as per the Supreme Court’s observations, bail is the rule and jail is an an exception, submitted the counsel.

However, the judge rejected the grounds submitted for bail. “The concept of long incarceration alone cannot be grounds for grant of bail”, wrote the judge.

In the event of a grant of bail to the petitioner, there is every possibility for the evidence being tampered with and the witnesses being influenced by him, held the judge and dismissed his plea.