Court gives cops 4-day custody of former promoters of Religare
New Delhi: Calling the offence “very serious” in nature, a Delhi court on Friday granted police four-day custody of former Religare promoters Malvinder Singh, his brother Shivinder and three others, arrested for allegedly misappropriating funds of Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL) and causing it losses of Rs 2,397 crore.
“The offence is of very serious nature involving huge amounts of siphoned money. Police custody is necessary to trace the trail of the cheated amount and find out the role of other people who might have participated in the conspiracy,” said chief metropolitan magistrate Deepak Sherawat. Appearing for RFL, senior advocates Vikas Pahwa and Janakalyan Das assisted the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and argued that all accused had “wilfully” defaulted in repayments.
It was alleged that the accused had left the company in a poor financial condition by disbursing loans to companies having no financial standing, which were controlled by them. Police highlighted that during its investigation, it received an RBI report stating that shareholding pattern of the promoters showed that the companies were related entities.
EOW said that loans were given on the recommendation of the promoters as the owners of the borrowing entities had good relations with them. “The forensic audit report obtained from
The offence was of very serious nature involving huge amounts of siphoned money, the court said, adding police custody was necessary to trace the trail of the cheated amount
SEBI revealed that Rs 1,260 crore was diverted to RHC Holding Pvt Ltd, which has 100% shareholding of promoters Malvinder and Shivinder,” EOW added.
Though the remand was not contested by Shivinder and the company’s ex-CMD Sunil Godhwani and former top executive Anil Saxena, Malvinder and Kavi Arora, the former chairman and managing director of Religare Enterprises Ltd (REL), contended that the FIR was lodged in March and the accused had cooperated in the investigation. Malvinder’s counsel, Manu Sharma, argued that his client had joined the EOW investigation and answered all the questions for which his custody was not required.
Shivinder, who was not represented by any lawyer, told the court, “I’m a victim of the fraud. I take this opportunity to help the case.” Pahwa, on the other hand, argued that civil proceedings were completely different from criminal investigation. “Custodial interrogation is permissible after arrest has been made. In custodial interrogation, the investigating officer is in a better position to interrogate,” he added.