SC grants bail to SRS group chairman who was arrested in 2018

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna granted bail, stating that Jindal had been in custody for over six years and the trial within the case probed by the Critical Fraud Investigation Workplace (SFIO) was but to start.

Directing his launch, the bench, additionally comprising justice PV Sanjay Kumar mentioned, “Although the offence is grave, the truth that the accused has been in jail for thus a few years with out trial can’t be neglected.”

Imposing situations to make sure there was no tampering of proof, the court docket directed Jindal to offer an inventory of his financial institution accounts and immovable properties to the trial court docket and prohibited him from opening any new checking account or alienating present property with out permission of the court docket involved.

As well as, he was requested to give up his passport to the trial court docket and share his contact particulars with SFIO to maintain observe of his whereabouts.

Senior advocate Maninder Singh who appeared for Jindal together with advocate Vivek Jain argued that Jindal had been in jail since his arrest in April 2018, and the investigation was nonetheless pending.

A particular court docket in Gurugram constituted below the Firms Act, granted bail to Jindal in December 2023 however the Punjab and Haryana excessive court docket set it apart on April 30 this 12 months.

The allegation towards Jindal is that he obtained mortgage amenities for the group by furnishing false paperwork. The businesses below the group had been allegedly integrated to regulate the money gross sales within the wholesale jewelry and actual property enterprise to point out an elevated web value of the group, based mostly on which he obtained credit score amenities that had been allegedly siphoned off.

SFIO registered a case of dishonest and felony conspiracy towards Jindal and different accused in 2018.

The trial court docket, which granted him bail final 12 months, had noticed that the grounds of arrest weren’t furnished to Jindal which vitiated his arrest as per the Supreme Court docket’s order in Pankaj Bansal case in October 2023. This mandate of supplying grounds of arrest was contained in part 212(8) of the Firms Act.

In his petition earlier than the highest court docket, Jindal mentioned that the HC neglected the truth that part 212(8) of the Firms Act, 2013 was similar to the availability of part 19 of the PMLA, 2002 coping with the furnishing of grounds of arrest and breach of this provision violated his constitutionally safeguarded proper.