Supreme Court Rejects Bail for PACL Directors in ₹40,000 Crore Scam Case
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday (05.09.2023), declined the bail applications of Gurmeet Singh and Subrata Bhattacharya, former directors of PACL (Pearls Agrotech Corporation Limited). PACL, a real estate firm, is embroiled in a massive scam exceeding 40,000 crores, allegedly deceiving numerous investors nationwide.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!The bench, comprising Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh, reviewed the bail applications concerning an FIR lodged in 2014 in New Delhi and all subsequent complaints filed by various informants. These complaints have been investigated by multiple agencies across the country. The Court emphasized that it couldn’t grant a bail order that would encompass all subsequent cases. Instead, it directed the applicants to seek bail from the relevant jurisdictional courts.
The Court stated, “One cannot apply one bail order to all the other subsequent cases. We do not have the adequate particulars pertaining to the subsequent cases filed, like the chargesheet pertaining to the case registered by different investigating agencies. It is not as if the applicants are unable to approach the concerned courts for seeking bail.”
In 2015, the Apex Court had instructed SEBI to establish a Committee under the leadership of Justice R M Lodha, the former Chief Justice of India. This committee’s role was to oversee the disposal of lands acquired by PACL, ensuring the sales proceeds would be returned to the investors. The Court highlighted that, despite the committee’s and the investigating agency’s efforts, only a minuscule amount of the over 40 thousand crores misappropriated by the accused has been recovered.
Senior Advocate ANS Nadkarni, representing the applicants, argued that they had been incarcerated for over seven years. He pointed out that one co-accused had already been granted bail. Nadkarni emphasized that the possibility of the applicants tampering with witnesses was minimal since the investigation primarily relied on documentary evidence.
Countering this, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati highlighted the vast number of investors deceived in the scam, with many families facing ruin as a result. Bhati also mentioned that the complete money trail remains elusive, with potential deposits in various foreign countries. She further argued that the onus was on the applicants to approach the respective jurisdictional courts for bail.
While the Supreme Court denied the applicants’ primary relief, it did extend the interim relief previously granted to them by three months, allowing them the freedom to approach the appropriate courts for bail.
