HC refuses bail to accused in Adarsh coop society case

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

Chandigarh, November 22

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a regular bail plea of Jainam Rathod in the Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society case. In his petition placed before the Bench of Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, the petitioner was seeking grant of regular bail pending trial in a criminal complaint for cheating and other offences. 

The matter is pending in the court of Gurugram Sessions Judge.

The HC was told that brief facts constituting allegations in the case were that multi-level co-operative society was registered by one Mukesh Modi and his family in the name of Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Limited and collected deposits from about 22 lakh investors. About Rs 5,000 crore was collected, which were not returned to the investors.

Accordingly, about Rs 9,253 crore, including interest, was reflected in the society accounts as payable to the investors. After collecting the money from the public, Mukesh Modi and the family created several companies under the aegis of Adarsh Group of Companies Limited with their associates and relatives as directors.

Subsequently, the companies were shown having been advanced loans of about Rs 1,700 crore by the co-operative society. Loans were required to be returned to the co-operative society by these companies with interest, as per the alleged agreements of advancement of money.

However, the loans were not returned. Therefore, money of co-operative society was allegedly being siphoned off through the companies created by Adarsh Group of Companies Limited.

When the matter came to the knowledge of the Central government, it ordered an investigation into the affairs of the companies through the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). 

After hearing Assistant Solicitor General Chetan Mittal for the SFIO, the Bench asserted: “This court has no reason to believe that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is not likely to influence the witnesses of the case and also not likely to destroy the evidence against him.”

The ruling...

The court has no reason to believe that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is not likely to influence the witnesses of the case and also not likely to destroy the evidence against him.