CBI court denies bail to shell company’s director in IDFC fund diversion case

According to the CBI, SRR Planning Gurus was one of the beneficiary companies that allegedly received misappropriated government funds routed through other shell entities

A special CBI court in Chandigarh on Monday dismissed the regular bail application of Ankur Sharma, director of shell company SRR Planning Gurus, observing that the investigation prima facie disclosed his involvement in handling and benefiting from the proceeds of the alleged CREST government funds siphoning case.

The court further noted that the company’s Yes Bank account was linked to his personal email address and mobile number. (HT Photo)

Rejecting the plea, special judge Bhawna Jain held that Sharma was “not a passive Director” but appeared to be in “exclusive control of the financial transactions carried out through the banking operation” of the company, as he was the sole authorised signatory of its Yes Bank and RBL Bank accounts. The court further noted that the company’s Yes Bank account was linked to his personal email address and mobile number.

According to the CBI, SRR Planning Gurus was one of the beneficiary companies that allegedly received misappropriated government funds routed through other shell entities. The agency alleged that the company received ₹27 crore through CAPCO Fintech Services and another ₹4.7 crore through Swastik Desh Project after funds were allegedly siphoned from CREST accounts maintained with IDFC First Bank.

The court observed that the funds were allegedly routed through these shell companies before reaching SRR Planning Gurus, making the company part of the second layer in the alleged diversion of funds.

Over 1300 phone calls exchanged between the accused

A significant factor weighed by the court was the telephonic contact between Sharma and the alleged main conspirator, former IDFC First Bank branch manager Ribhav Rishi. Referring to the call detail record analysis, the court noted that 1,387 phone calls had been exchanged between Sharma’s two mobile numbers and Rishi during the relevant period. “Such number of phone calls between the two, prima facie demonstrate the close proximity and co-ordination between the accused and his co-accused Ribhav Rishi during the period when the alleged fraud had been committed,” the court observed.

The court also rejected Sharma’s explanation that ₹34.4 lakh transferred from the company to his personal account represented payment for professional services rendered by him.

Sharma argued that there were no direct financial transactions between CREST and his company, that he was neither a government servant nor a bank official, that the investigation against him concluded with the filing of the chargesheet, and that prolonged incarceration was unwarranted since the trial was likely to take considerable time, holding that this was “a defence, to be proved by him during the course of trial.”

Banking operations played a material role

Opposing the bail plea, the CBI contended that Sharma, who was also the chartered accountant of Ribhav Rishi, exercised exclusive control over the company’s banking operations and played a material role in receiving, layering and concealing the misappropriated funds through shell entities. The agency also submitted that investigation against other co-directors and associates was still pending.

Declining relief, the court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie indicated Sharma’s involvement in criminal breach of trust and handling or benefiting from the proceeds of crime. It further observed that, considering the alleged role attributed to him in an economic offence involving huge loss of public funds and affecting the country’s economy, he was not entitled to the concession of bail.

The court also dismissed Sharma’s first application for regular bail.