“Further Detention Will Frustrate Object Of Article 21”: Bombay HC Grants Bail To Former MD Of IL&FS Hari Sankaran In Fraud Case After Nearly 5 Yrs
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Hari Sankaran (63), prime accused in the high-profile Rs. 94 crore IL&FS alleged fraud case, five years after his arrest.Sankaran, the former Vice Chairman and Managing Director of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN), was arrested on April 1, 2019, by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) for offenses punishable under Sections 447 of...
The Bombay High Court has granted bail to Hari Sankaran (63), prime accused in the high-profile Rs. 94 crore IL&FS alleged fraud case, five years after his arrest.
Sankaran, the former Vice Chairman and Managing Director of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. (IFIN), was arrested on April 1, 2019, by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) for offenses punishable under Sections 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, and Sections 417, 420 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Special Judge rejected his application for bail vide an order dated 3rd October, 2019, following which he approached the High Court.
Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan noted that Sankaran has been suffering from various severe ailments, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and other comorbidities.
The court observed that continuing his detention would increase the risk of cardiac death and frustrate the very object of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
“In view of such a fragile heart as well as overall health condition of the applicant, no purpose would be served in continuing his detention, else, it would frustrate the very object of Article 21 of the Constitution. In case, detention of the applicant is continued in judicial custody, perhaps it would increase a risk of cardiac death in view of the medical reports placed on record.”
Justice Chavan relied heavily on several Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb and Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which upheld the constitutional courts' power to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution dealing with a citizen's fundamental rights, even in cases involving statutory restrictions on bail.
Therefore, irrespective of the merits and demerits of the case, as well as the embargo under Section 212 (6) (ii) of the Companies Act of 2013, the court granted Sankaran bail.
The court noted that Sankaran had already undergone half of the maximum sentence for the offenses he was charged with and that the trial was unlikely to commence anytime soon, given the complexity of the case and the large number of accused persons involved.
Sankaran's counsel, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, argued that his client's continued incarceration violated his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, despite the rigors of the twin conditions in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. Ponda also highlighted Sankaran's deteriorating health condition, including the implantation of ten stents in his heart, and the risk of sudden cardiac death.
The SFIO, represented by Special Public Prosecutor H.S. Venegavkar, strongly objected to Sankaran's release on bail, citing the gravity, seriousness, and enormity of the offense. However, the court found merit in Sankaran's arguments and granted him bail on the execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one or two sureties of the same amount, subject to various conditions, including not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.