 "Subhiksha founder gets bail from Madras HC")
Investors, from whom Viswapriya raised about Rs 250 crore, had complained to the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) of Chennai police, which registered a case under Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (TNPID) Act and applicable sections of Indian Penal Code. Last month, the high court had refused anticipatory bail to Subramanian following which he was arrested.
In an order on Friday, judge V Ramasubramanian said, “The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge under the TNPID Act, Chennai.” The court, however, restricted Subramanian from leaving Chennai and directed him to report to the investigating officer every day.
The court also directed the businessman to file a detailed affidavit of various properties held by him and his firms. “His affidavit shall also contain full particulars of the disputes, in which, those properties are involved or the encumbrances into which, the properties are entangled. The affidavit should also contain the details of persons claiming independent right, title or interest over those properties.”
The order noted there were two versions of what transpired after the rejection of anticipatory bail order on September 18. “According to the petitioner, he surrendered immediately after the dismissal of his anticipatory bail. According to the police, they arrested him while he was on his way to the airport to flee from Chennai.”
The judge further noted the trial court had rejected custodial interrogation sought by the EoW. Following this, the enforcement directorate (ED) was allowed to interrogate for five days in the prison. “The said period has also lapsed. Therefore, there is really no point in detaining him in prison as an under-trial prisoner.”
The prosecution vehemently opposed the bail saying the total amount defaulted by him to the depositors was around Rs 250 crore and that he was not a law-abiding citizen and had violated various laws such as RBI Act and Companies Act. It also pointed out that other agencies such as Reserve Bank of India (RBI), ED, Registrar of Companies and Income Tax department have registered criminal cases for various alleged offences and are pursuing these separately.
The judge said the cases registered by RBI and the Registrar of Companies are for violations of certain procedural provisions of those special enactments. “The fate of the investigation undertaken by the CBI in C.B.I.R.C.4(E)/2013 is not known. Even after the petitioner's arrest, the CBI has not moved any application for his custodial interrogation. Therefore, the grounds on which the prosecution opposes the bail plea are not sustainable.”
The investors, who were intervenors in the bail petition, opposed on the ground that “once the petitioner is released, he will abscond and escape the clutches of law and that he is a highly influential person”. Another reason why the depositors opposed the bail is that the petitioner is in the habit of filing “affidavits after affidavits containing false statements” and thereafter retracting from those statements.
On the court’s demand, Subramanian’s counsel had submitted a list of properties. The list includes office spaces in prime areas such as Nungambakkam, Mylapore and Madipakkam and land parcels in outskirts such as Ponneri, Pallikaranai and Marakkanam.
However, in a fresh twist, two other people, not depositors, who had interests in properties claimed by Subramanian opposed his bail. These petitioners have other disputes with Subramanian with regard to title to properties or the controlling interest in a company. “Insofar as they are concerned, it appears that so long as the petitioner continues to be in jail, the properties, over which there is a title dispute, can safely be with them. Their objection to the bail petition has added a new dimension and new twist to the case,” the judge said.
The court was of the view that his release on bail could help recover some money for the depositors. “If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is a possibility, however remote the same may appear to be to the depositors, that these properties can be brought to sale, subject, however, to the resolution of title disputes, and the sale proceeds could be paid to the depositors.”
PROMISED LAND
List of properties submitted to court by Subramanian
- Properties in Pallikaranai village of 1.65 acres in all
- 1 property of about 2.5 acres in Jaladianpet Village
- 1 property of about 1.37 acres in Madipakkam Village
- 2 properties of about 0.75 acres in Madipakkam-II (S.Kolathur) village
- 1 property of 10.4 acres in Marakkanam village
- 2 flats in Mylapore of about 2,000 sq ft, each.
- 1 basement office and 3 flats in Vepery
- About 25,000 sq ft office space in Velachery
- About 2 1/2 grounds with 15,000 sq. ft. built in Nungambakkam
- 30.8 acres in Ponneri