Supreme Court Grants Bail To Amarjeet Sharma In BPSL Fraud Case

Today, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, allowed the bail plea filed by Amarjeet Sharma, head of the Accounts Department of (Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.) BPSL, in a case being probed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of BPSL and its then group companies.

While granting the bail, the Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia, imposed the following conditions:

Firstly, the passport of the appellant/ Amarjeet Sharma shall be deposited before the Trial Court. Secondly, in case the appellant seeks to travel abroad, he will apply to the Trial Court for the said permission. Lastly, out of two sureties one surety will be given by the close blood relation of the appellant.

The present appeal assails the Delhi High Court’s order wherein the Court denied default bail. The High Court, in its order, narrated the fact that the appellant was arrested on 21.03.2022 and the investigation report/complaint has been filed on 19.05.2022, i.e., within 60 days and noted:

“The right of default bail is finished/extinguished, the moment charge sheet is filed within the period prescribed therein. Any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a statutorily sanctioned reason for grant of default bail.”

Court Room Exchange

At the commencement of the proceedings, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Sharma, apprised the Bench that out of 92 accused, 57 have either been enlarged on bail or have received protective orders except the petitioner. He highlighted that it includes the CFO of the company.

To this, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing on behalf of SFIO, replied that it is difficult for a Court to handle 92 accused. He also asserted that a large number of accused, and the multiple application filed by them is proving to be impediment in framing of charges. He submitted that one of the aspects for delaying trial is the strategy of the accused to ask for unrelied documents and that itself takes time.

However, in this aspect Sibal’s submission was based on the legal principle that sometimes, unrelied documents are required for seeking discharge/ bail.

Moving forward with the hearing, Justice Kaul inquired: "If for 19 months charges cannot be framed, can we keep somebody behind bars for it? That system cannot frame charges for 19 months, but we will not grant bail till we decide to frame charges?"

Pertinently, Justice Kaul clarified that he is not blaming anybody, and the bench is looking into the factual scenario.

Sibal: There is a lot to be said on this side. Sibal went on to give an example. “In Delhi Riots, they have video graphed everything, they have the video with them. We have been asking that please give us the video because that will result in people being acquitted because the video has everything….so, the result is that it gets delayed.”

Justice Kaul stated that the whole thing needs streamlining especially in these cases where there are a lot of accused. He thereafter inquired: How long he has been in custody?

Sibal: One year seven months

ASG: Let him make the regular bail application.

Justice Kaul: 52 odd people have been granted bail…. charges have not been framed.

ASG: This is not the forum. Let him go to the trial court and come back. That is my submission.

Thereafter, he pressed upon the fact that he has siphoned off so much money.

Justice Kaul replied:

“…the problem is it never come to the bottom of it that that who has actually siphoned off….some of these people are ahead of state in the technology itself therefore, the nature of these offences is changing and the state will have to gear itself to deal with these changes. Like, AI is coming and other things are coming and all the spectrums have to be dealt with.”

Justice Kaul: If they are not relying on a document can you say that charges should not be framed?

Sibal: I am not saying that charges should not be framed. I am just saying that give me the documents which they are not relying upon and they are in my favour.

Justice Kaul: What will be the purpose?

Sibal: “Because at the time when I ask for bail, those documents will be handy for me to that look I should not be inside….that has very serious consequences.” Giving an example, he said that everything in the Delhi riots is taped “they have the tape which shows that nothing happened in the spot but they are prosecuting people. They won’t give the tape.”

ASG: Not at the stage of discharge.

Justice Kaul: We should flag this issue.

Accordingly, the Bench, while granting appeal, also recorded that ASG can argue in the Trial Court as to what should be the approach of the Trial Court in aspect of supply of documents.

Brief Background

It is the case of the prosecution that appellant is involved in the alleged fraud allegedly resulting in misappropriation of the public money to the tune of Rs.5,435/- Crores. The role assigned to Amarjeet Sharma is that he was the head of the Accounts Department of BPSL. All the financial of BPSL and various accused companies were prepared by him which were not reflecting true and fair view of the affairs of the companies. He had signed the balance sheets of BPSL for F.Y. 2010-11 to 2017-18. He was aware that BPSL used to make payments in the form of capital advances to various companies based at Kolkata which further invested in the accused companies by rotation of these funds. He was bogus advance aware that the issue of Capital Advances was highlighted by the Income-Tax department and also the same was red flagged in the forensic report conducted by EY for the period F.Y. 2013-14 to 2015-He was aware that the advances to suppliers were not genuine business.

Case Title: Amarjeet Sharma V. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, SLP (Crl) No. 6921/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order