HC grants conditional bail to ponzi scam-accused Shanti Surana
Kolkata: Directing the state and the investigating agency to take measures for search, seizure, attachment and recovery in reference with West Bengal Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments (WPIDFE) Act, the Calcutta High Court on Thursday granted conditional bail to the ponzi scam accused Shanti Kumar Surana who had allegedly duped people, especially senior citizens, of crores of rupees. The Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Gaurang Kanth was hearing the bail application of Surana who was arrested in 2022 by the Directorate of Economic Offences (DEO) of the state government.
Surana’s company had issued brochures inviting deposits to the Surana Group Funds Scheme from the public, especially senior citizens. The deposits were made since 2008. The company admittedly did not obtain RBI permission to invite deposits. The brochure was patently without authority law, court observed. Probe revealed transactions over Rs 1000 crores were transacted to various accounts of the company and its associates.
The court, following the hearing, observed that there is little possibility of the trial commencing in near future. The court said: “Though the allegations are grave and have had large ramification and impact on the investors, it is relevant to note that their profile discloses a close-knit group of family members and associates who were close to the petitioner and his family. It is not a case that the depositors constitute disparate members of the general public at large”. The bench observed that a balance between continued undertrial detention and the big possibility of commencement of trial on the other hand, requires to be struck.
The court decided to grant conditional bail to Surana who has been in custody for two and a half years. Conditions set required furnishing of a bail bond of Rs 25000 with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial court. Prior to release, his passport needs to be deposited in court’s custody while the petitioner cannot leave the country without the trial court’s permission.
Surana would be required to render necessary assistance to further probe and cooperate with recovery proceedings which may be initiated by the probe agency or the state under WPIDFE Act. He would also have to meet the probe agency as and when required while providing his residential address to the agency.
