Recently, the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia granted bail to 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 granted bail, the Court imposed the conditions, that his passport 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.
During the Court 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 specifically mentioned that it also includes the CFO of the company.
To this, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing on behalf of SFIO, submitted that it is difficult for a Court to handle 92 accused.
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.
Case Brief -
The prosecution contends that the appellant is implicated in an alleged fraud, purportedly resulting in the misappropriation of public funds amounting to Rs. 5,435 Crores. Amarjeet Sharma's designated role was as the head of the Accounts Department at BPSL. He was responsible for preparing the financial statements of BPSL and several accused companies, which were deemed to be inaccurate and not a true reflection of the companies' financial state. Amarjeet Sharma had signed the balance sheets of BPSL for the fiscal years 2010-11 to 2017-18. He was cognizant of BPSL's practice of making payments in the form of capital advances to various Kolkata-based companies, which subsequently reinvested these funds in the accused companies through a rotation of these funds.
It was known to him that the Income-Tax department had raised concerns about the issue of Capital Advances, and this matter had also been highlighted in the forensic report conducted by EY for the fiscal years 2013-14 to 2015. Additionally, he was aware that the advances made to suppliers were not genuinely related to the business.
After hearing an arguements, the division 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.
Case Title: Amarjeet Sharma V. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy