, taken in for allegedly siphoning off Rs 2,000 crore from Bhushan Steel and Bhushan Power and Steel (companies that have been sold through NCLT intervention), has moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail){kind=link}
Neeraj Singhal, former promoter of Bhushan Steel, who was the first arrest of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), taken in for allegedly siphoning off Rs 2,000 crore from Bhushan Steel and Bhushan Power and Steel (companies that have been sold through NCLT intervention), has moved the Delhi High Court seeking bail. He is in judicial custody.
He was arrested by SFIO on August 8.
Singhal’s attorneys — senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra — have claimed in the petition that the arrest of Singhal is illegal and that no “fraud” as per IPC has been committed which attracts stringent rules for bail.
The petition says that section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is violative (in this case) of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution as it “inverts the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law. The petition says that for grant of bail for similar IPC offence the presumption of innocence attaches, however for bail under the Companies Act section 212 (6) (ii) – which says: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 1[offence covered under section 447] of this Act shall be cognizable and no person accused of any offence under those sections shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless… [ii] where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail — of the act the presumption of innocence is inverted and a bar is created which is unreasonable and violative of the fundamental right of personal liberty under article 21 of the constitution.
—India Legal Bureau