BACKGROUND-
Bail of Nauhera Sheikh the managing director of Heera Gold and Exim Pvt Ltd is canceled according to the Supreme Court. 580 crore rupees that would be used to compensate the investors – which the court required – she has not been able to come forward with. Such pleas were granted to Sheikh multiple times by the courts. The ruling went on to allow Sheikh 14 days to surrender, while saying that all FIRs against her will now be treated as per the law.
INTRODUCTION-
As such, the Court made it clear that it has not made any observation which would prevent the Respondent-accused from applying afresh for bail. For the purpose of reference, Heera Gold Exim Private Limited a company that deals with gold attempted to defraud the public by gaining their deposits and pitching dividends of up to 36 percent on the invested amounts. When the promised dividends along with the maturity sum were not forthcoming complaints of a multi-state scam were leveled against the investors some of whom were lured from many states.
In view of this Nowhera Shaikh was nabbed and the Serious Fraud Investigations Office (SFIO) was called to look into the issue.
On January 19, 2021, she was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court while promising to clear the claims that the investors had presented. The legal news review dealt in particular case is- State of Telangana by Special Officer Vandana & Ors vs M/s Heera Gold Exim Pvt Ltd & Ors.
KEY ASPECTS-
The interim order was granted in the form of bail, which was extended from time to time and was finally discharged on August 5, 2021. In May 2022, when the SFIO approached the Court with a request to cancel their bail, the Supreme Court rejected the plea by the SFIO. Their decision was in accordance with the principles that ensure justice in relation to cases of economic offences. The understanding is that the priority of the agency is to recover funds lost by investors rather than to exhaust all its resources in efforts to arrest the accused parties. According to the final order dated August 23, Shaikh was supposed to deposit Rs 580 crore to the tribunal to meet the claims of the investors. It further requested for an inventory of the immovable properties and buildings that are not subject to any mortgage or encumbrance of any description. Such a request was also made for properties for which partial encumbrances exist.
Nevertheless, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra’s bench observed that even after the order was demanding strict compliance, Senior Advocate DP Singh, appearing for the accused, did not make any positive statement to raise resources. In this scenario, the Court withdrew bail and afforded the accused 2 weeks to surrender.
Singh then stated before the court that the arrangements for not more than “Rs 504 crore” had already been made in accordance with the previous order with notarized MoUs but that the Rs 240 crore which was not notarized was then in the process of being notarised. While he was in the process of addressing the court, Justice Pardiwala cut him short with a question: “Where is the money?”
Singh rebutted the question and said that the money sums could be paid into the Supreme Court account directly but clarified that this could not be achieved within a period of 6 weeks. Nevertheless, Singh managed to submit the list of properties that the Court required in its previous order. ASG S.V. Raju challenged this list in order to be produced by Singh and stated that it was not a complete list.
Justice Pardiwala once more requested Singh’s positive response on when the Rs 580 crore would be deposited. But when Singh did not specify a precise date, the court felt compelled to issue an order canceling the bail.
CONCLUSION-
The Court ordered – In our previous order we have made it clear that if the relevant respondent accused is unable to pay Rs 580 crores then we shall dismiss the clubbing of the FIRs petition as filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The bail which is granted by this Court will also be set aside. This time when the matter was taken on hearing, the counsel appearing for the respondent did not seem to offer any positive statement regarding the amount referred to. The matter seems to have remained stagnant at this stage. In such circumstances, the Article 32 petition seeking clubbing of all the FIRs is directed to be dismissed. The law will be followed by the SFIO. The bail granted by this Court has been revoked. The Court also stated that only company law crimes would be investigated by the SFIO and other related crimes would be investigated by the concerned police station.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- ALOK G. CHHAPARWAL
