Anand Subramanian v. Cbi

Sanjeev Aggarwal, J.:— Vide this order, I shall dispose off the application u/S. 437/439 CrPC moved on behalf of accused Anand Subramanian for grant of regular bail.

2. Brief facts as mentioned in the FIR are:

Source information received that during 2010 to 2014, Shri Sanjay Gupta owner and promoter of M/s. OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. abused the server architecture of National Stock Exchange (NSE) in criminal conspiracy with unknown officials of NSE. In furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy Sanjay Gupta with the help of his brother-in-law Shri Aman Kokrady and other unknown persons, managed the data centre staff of NSE who passed the information regarding switching on time of NSE exchange servers. Further unknown officials of NSE gave OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. access to servers which were technologically latest and least crowded at that particular period. This helped OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. In being mostly the first one to login on the Exchange Server of the NSE.

2. Co-location is a set up wherein the broker's computer is located in the same area in which server of the Stock Exchange is located. This particular setup of server gives a 10 : 1 (Approx.) speed advantage in comparison to other brokers. Further, that till 2014 information was disseminated by exchange server to the brokers attached with co-location facility through ‘tick by tick’ (TBT) based system architecture. In this architecture data was disseminated in a sequential manner whereby the stock broker who connected first to the server of Stock Exchange received ticks i.e. market feed, before the stock broker who connected later.

3. Source further informed that Sanjay Gupta had unfair access to co-location facility of NSE between 2010 to 2014 that enabled his company OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. to login first to the secondary server and get the data before everyone else which allowed a split-second faster access to the data feed of NSE. Even a split-second faster access is considered to result in huge gains for any stock trader.

4. Source revealed that initially NSE did not have the system of starting its TBT servers (tick by tick server) at a fixed time everyday. Source revealed that Sanjay Gupta with the help from unknown persons, managed the data centres staff of National Stock Exchange (NSE) who passed the information regarding switching on time of NSE exchange serves.

5. Source further informed that during October 2012, NSE improved the system of imbalance load factor among different TBT Colocation servers and introduced load balancer among the various TBT Co-location servers. Loan balancer ensured that the load is evenly distributed among the TBT servers. In additional there were back up servers available in NSE for providing connection to the servers of the brokers only in case primary servers had some technical glitch or failure. While servers of all other brokers were connected to the primary servers of NSE, Sanjay Gupta once again dishonestly and fraudulently managed the data centre staff of NSE who started to let OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. Connected to the backup servers especially. Backup servers were with zero load and therefore had provided far better and fast access to the market feed to the OPG Security Pvt. Ltd. of Sanjay Gupta in comparison to other brokers. Thus, the favour shown by unknown officials of NSE to OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. By providing market feed first in comparison to other brokers resulted in wrongful gain to OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. and wrongful loss to other brokers/investors.

6. Source information further revealed that on receiving the complaints of exploitation of TBT architecture by OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., SEBI conducted enquiry and according to its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) report, OPG Securities gained materially by exploiting the TBT architecture of NSE. TAC report also revealed that OPG Securities had consistently logged in first on selected TBT servers on most of the trading days during the period 2010 to 2014 and also had access to servers that had better hardware. Deloittee Touche Thmatsu, which did a forensic review of the NSE's Co-location facility, found that OPG Securities was the first in most cases during trading sessions.

7. Source information also revealed that in order to ensure the favorable report from SEBI in the on-going enquiry being carried out by SEBI against the role of OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd. in the misuse of TBT architecture of NSE, Sanjay Gupta dishonestly and fraudulently influenced the official of SEBI for which bribe money was exchanged between Sanjay Gupta and some unknown officials of SEBI. Source information has further revealed that bribe amount was paid to unknown officials of NSE and SEBI by accused persons which shows criminal misconduct on part of unknown public servants for showing undue favour to OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd.

8. Further source information revealed that Shri Sanjay Gupta knowingly and deliberately directed his employees to delete some important mails, text messages, logs, etc. related to Co-location controversy with the intention of destroying electronic evidence against him and his company.

9. Source further reveled that one Ajay Narottam Shah had been instrumental in exploitation of NSE TBT architecture. Source revealed that he had collected NSE trade data in the name of carrying out research and subsequently, passed it to private persons who in turn developed an algo software named ‘Chanakya’. Chanakya software, thereafter, were sold to selected brokers including OPG Securities who in turn had been alleged to be benefitted by exploiting the TBT architecture of NSE by the help from Chanakya Software.

10. Source also revealed that OPG Securities has been illegally trading in Dubai, Ghana, Singapore, Hongkong and China and Sanjay Gupta controls many entities in Dubai. Sanjay Gupta and Aman Kokrady (brother-in-law of Sanjay Gupta) have raised funds from abroad.

11. Therefore, above source information reveals offences punishable under section 120 B & 204 of IPC and Sec. 66 of IT Act 2000 alongwith Section 7, 12, & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 against Sanjay Gupta, Aman Kokrady, Ajay Narottam Shah, M/s. OPG Securities Pvt. Ltd., unknown officials of SEBI & NSE and other unknown persons for entering into criminal conspiracy for attempt to give and receive bribe, abuse of official position, unfair access of TBT servers of NSE for wrongful gain, for manipulating the server of NSE and for destroying the electronic evidences.

12. Therefore, a regular case vide RC no. RC AC1 2018 A0011 dated 28.05.2018 is registered and entrusted to Sh. Avnish Kumar, Inspector, CBI/AC-1/New Delhi for investigation and report.

3. I have heard Sh. Arshdeep Singh along with Sh. Vishnu Mohan, Ms. Aakashi Lodha and Sh. Aditya, Ld. Counsel(s) for the applicant/accused Anand Subramanian and Sh. V.K. Pathak, Ld. PP for CBI along with IO DSP Puspal Paul.

4. The present bail application has been filed on the following main grounds:

a) That the accused has not committed any crime and a false case has been foisted upon him by the CBI. It is stated that the CBI has already recovered all the material in possession of the accused and there is no question of tempering with any evidence or material or for the applicant to otherwise hamper the investigation. Despite the fact that he has fully cooperated with the CBI, the CBI had arrested him in a mechanical manner.

b) It is stated that the accused has already been granted police custody remand up to 06.03.2022 and it is orally stated that the same has been extended till 09.03.2022. It is further stated that the accused has fully cooperated during the police custody remand and nothing more has to be recovered from his possession.

c) It is further stated that the FIR pertains to the year 2018, which is pending for more than four years, therefore, there was no ground for arresting the accused or keeping him in police custody, when he had fully cooperated in the entire investigation with the investigating agency.

d) It is further stated that the investigating agency has arrested him without any just cause and without furnishing the grounds of arrest, which is contrary to the Article 21 & 22 of the Constitution of India as well as the CBI's own Crime Manual.

e) It is further stated that the accused has no role in the present FIR nor there is any ground that he will temper or influence the witnesses. It is also stated that the offence(s), for which the accused has been arrested are not punishable for more than seven years and he should not have been arrested in the case in view of the settled laws.

f) It is orally stated that the investigation qua the accused is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. He has clean antecedents and he will abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court.

5. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused be released on regular bail.

6. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgment(s) in the application itself:

a) Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260;

b) Satyajit Ballubhai Desai v. State of Gujarat (2014) 14 SCC 434;

c) State of Maharashtra v. Nainmal Punjaji Shah (1969) 3 SCC 904;

d) Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273;

e) Gurcharan Singh v. State (1978) 1 SCC 118 : AIR 1978 SC 179;

f) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.

7. The CBI has opposed the above bail application of the accused on the following main grounds which are detailed as under:—

a. That the case pertains to the allegations against high officials of the NSE where investments have been made by Indian and foreign financial institutions. Investigations into the role and responsibility of top officials in facilitating unfair access to the Co-Location setup is underway, whereby huge profits running in crores have been made. The nature and gravity of offence is quite severe having far reaching consequences. The petitioner was a high ranking and influential official of NSE during the relevant period. Incriminating evidence have already come to fore against him. The consequences of grating bail will adversely affect the investigation.

b. That in the pre-paras it has been submitted that the applicant Shri Anand Subramanian has deleted most of the emails from the two accounts viz. ‘rigyajursama@ outlook.com’ and ‘aanand_s@hotmail.com’ with an intention to destroy the evidence. This shows about his being aware of the relevance and importance of incriminating digital evidences and also his inclination/intention to cause its disappearance.

c. Examination of other witnesses is underway to unearth the unanswered questioned related to co-location set up wherein the applicant Anand Subramanian, an unqualified person was appointed as Chief Strategic Advisor to MD & CEO, without following established rules & procedures. There are apprehensions that he may sway the witnesses if enlarged on bail.

d. Investigation is underway with regard to other suspects/persons with whom the emails containing confidential information about NSE have been shared. If let free, accused may influence witnesses, cause deletion of the connected emails and disappearance of evidence thereby adversely affecting the investigation.

e. Investigation with regard to the foreign visits of Anand Subramanian, its necessity and outcome is underway. Anand Subamanian can influence these witnesses if he is given bail.

8. On merits, the pleas taken in the bail application have been vehemently denied and it is stated that during the year 2013-2014, when the accused Anand Subramanian was at the helm of affairs in NSE, OPG Securities had connected for more than 300 days to secondary server without any objection from NSE and thereby made undue gains.

9. It is further stated the the CBI has already collected evidence against the accused Anand Subramanian and CBI investigation is not confined to investigation conducted by SEBI. It is further stated that the accused provided ambiguous replies to CBI and did not co-operate in investigation and since his access to email ids of ‘rigyajursama@outlook.com appeared suspicious, he was arrested for custodial interrogation.

10. It is further stated that the accused remained evasive and non-cooperative throughout the investigation. His contempt for law can be gouged from the fact that he had deliberately deleted all relevant emails. It is further stated that National Stock Exchange (NSE) deals with the finance of the investors and is under duty to protect the interest of the investors in particular and public at large. Apart of the above various large financial institutions and banks viz State Bank of India, LIC, GIC, etc. hold stake in NSE and release of this accused on bail is likely to hamper collection of evidence.

11. It is stated that accused Anand Subramanian, while performing the public duty to protect the interest of common investors indulged in criminal conspiracy with other co-accused and caused huge advantage to various trading members/brokers and thus has committed serious economic offence.

12. It is stated that considering the gravity of the allegations against the accused and the fact that it is a grave economic offence and the accused may also temper with the evidence or destroy the same, the bail application of the accused be dismissed.

13. In the reply itself, the CBI has relied upon the following two judgments:—

a) State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521.

b) Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau Of Investigation ., (2013) 7 SCC 439 : AIR 2013 SC 1933.

14. I have gone through the rival contentions.

15. It has been held in the following judgment(s) that economic offence(s) are in itself a class of its own and they need to be viewed seriously and have to be considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole, thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. In this regard, it has been held in the following judgment(s) as under:

16. In the case of Rohit Tandon v. ED, (2018) 11 SCC 46 (AIR 2017 SC 5309), it has been held as under:

21. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money and also that the allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the accused persons under Section 24 of the Act of 2002.

17. Further, in the case of Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau Of Investigation . of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 439, it has been held as under:

15) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

18. Further, in the case of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation ., (2013) 7 SCC 466, while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Gujrat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, it has been held as under:

26) Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fiber of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal. (1987) 2 SCC 364 this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:—

“5 ….. The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the Community. A disregard for the interest of the Community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and of the Community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest….”

19. Further, in the case of Gautam Kundu v. The Enforcement Directorate CRM No. 8345 of 2019/2020 SCC OnLine Cal 533, it has been held as under:

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, since the petitioner has completed one half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence under the said Act 2002, the petitioner has preferred the instant application for bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the case is an exceptional case which cannot be equated with the cases where the offenders involved in common phenomenon other than the economic offences and rejected prayer of the petitioner to release him on bail. It is argued that the provision of Section 436A of the Code relates to a maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained during investigation, inquiry or trial. It is also provided that in no case, an undertrial prisoner can be detained beyond the maximum period of imprisonment for which he can be convicted for the offence. Accordingly, it is urged that since the petitioner has been in custody for more than four and half years, his detention period is beyond one half of the maximum period as the maximum punishment provided for the offence under Section 4 of the Act, 2002 is for a term of seven years and even the trial has not been initiated. The trial Judge while dealing with the application under Section 436A of Cr.P.C. has observed that there is a merit of further detention of further custody since the matter is very sensitive. Similar to that of 167(2) of the Code, Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the learned Judge loses his jurisdiction to remand the under trial for custody after expiry of a period of one half of the maximum punishment and for such reasons the order rejecting the prayer for release of the accused petitioner has been assailed as per se illegal and in violation of Section 436A of Criminal Procedure Code.

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Accordingly, in the context of what has been discussed above, the prayer for release of the petitioner Gautam Kundu is refused considering the enormity of the crime and his involvement in many other cases relating to Rose Valley cheat fund scam case.

20. Further, in the case of State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, it has been held as under:

…In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the Courts.

Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal propositions canvassed by the learned counsels, it should be noted that there is no straight jacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which is the bail provision, places responsibility upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness before a person's liberty is abridged. Although ‘bail is the rule and jail is an exception’ is well established in our jurisprudence, we have to measure competing forces present in facts and circumstances of each case before enlarging a person on bail.

….. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.[10] Usually socio-economic offence has deep rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fiber of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.

21. No doubt the gravity of the offence and the role played by the accused as well as the nature of accusations and the punishment it entails as well as the magnitude of the offence and the length of the sentence prescribed for the offence are all important factors to be considered at the time of considering the bail application of accused. But at the same time, the magnitude of the allegations against the accused as well as the enormity of the allegations especially in case of economic offences which are considered as a class of their own have to be viewed differently.

22. It has been recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019) (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10493 of 2019 decided on 04.12.2019 as under:

21. Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

(emphasis supplied)

However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence” and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial.

23. As held in the aforesaid judgment, bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, but at the same time, it has also been held therein that the under lining conclusion is irrespective of the nature and gravity of the charge, the precedent of another case will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail, though, it may have bearing on the principle, but ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis. It has also been held in said judgment that the gravity of the offence will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in case of financial irregularities. It has also been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence”.

24. Regarding the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that an order dated 30.04.2019 was passed by Security Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as SEBI) where the present accused was Noticee No. 4 and wherein certain observations were made against the applicant/accused, while dealing with the topic “Liability of Employees for PFUTP and SECC Regulations” and qua the role of the present accused, it was observed as under in para 8.4.7.7:

“I have considered the allegations against Anand Subramanian, Ravi Apte and Umesh Jain. Anand Subramanian has contended that he was not involved in COLO matters directly or indirectly and was only taking care of the regular operations of the exchange and the regulatory side of the exchange. His case is that he was a part time consultant and he demitted office in October 2016) …….”

25. Thereafter, he has relied upon another order of the SEBI dated 11.02.2022, wherein the present accused was Noticee No. 6, wherein qua the present accused it was observed as under:

“43.1 Noticee no. 6 has made Incorrect and misleading statement before SEBI on his appointment and selection in NSE. Noticee no. 6 then ‘Group Operating Officer and Advisor to MD’ (‘GOO’) on consultancy contract w.e.f. April 01, 2015 was in substance KMP under SECC Regulations, 2012.

43.1.1 The SCN-VI alleges that with reagrd to the joining at NSE, the Noticee in his statement dated April 11, 2018 before SEBI has, inter alia, stated that he applied directly to HR at NSE after getting leads from headhunter and went through a routine process interview with HR Head Shri Chandrasekhar Mukherjee and Noticee no. 1 the then Joint MD, individually and the offer was received from NSE. Upon examination of the matter it is noted that appointment of the Noticee no. 6 was approved by Noticee no. 1, then Joint MD vide internal note dated January 18, 2013 and accordingly a letter of agreement dated January 18, 2013 was executed between NSE and the Noticee no. 6.”

26. Therefore, he has argued that in view of the observations made by SEBI which is the capital market regulator, it is clear that no criminality can be attributed to the accused, as he has no role to play in the day to day running of the National Stock Exchange and he was only an employee and not the decision maker and even the SEBI had given clean chit saying that he was not involved in co-location matters directly or indirectly and was only taking care of regular operations of the exchange at the regulatory side of the exchange.

27. It is pertinent to mention herein that the main duty of the SEBI is to regulate the Indian Capital Markets, it monitors and regulates the stock markets and protects the interests of the investors by enforcing certain rules and regulations. No doubt SEBI has power to launch criminal proceedings under Section 24 of the SEBI Act, however, the scope of the proceedings before the SEBI being a market regulator is totally different from the scope and nature of the present criminal proceedings launched in the present RC/FIR.

28. The SEBI has no powers to determine the criminality of the accused in offences other than with which the SEBI Act deals, though some times, there may be some overlapping, as observed earlier while deciding the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna, although it is a completely different matter that all this while the SEBI has looked other way with regard to launching criminal proceedings against the present accused as well as other accused persons involved in the co-location scam, despite being the market watch dog.

29. No doubt, the present FIR was lodged in the year 2018 with regard to the period 2010 to 2014 against certain persons named in the said RC/FIR and unknown officials of the National Stock Exchange. It is stated in para 5 of the reply filed by the CBI as under:

5. That Ms. Chitra Ramkrishna was designated as Joint MD from 2009 till 31st March, 2013. During her tenure as Joint MD, NSE, the co-location was conceptualized and implemented. She functioned as MD & CEO from 1st April 2013 till 2nd December 2016. That the petitioner Anand Subramanian was appointed as Chief Strategic Advisor to MD w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and subsequently was re-designated as Group Operating Officer & Advisor to MD on 01.04.2015. Vide Board meeting held on 11.08.2015, substantial powers were delegated upon the accused. Thus, the accused Anand Subramanian was posted at NSE and was holding a very important position during the relevant period and was privy to sensitive information when the co-location scam happened.

30. It is also alleged in the reply that the accused had entered into criminal conspiracy with the co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna and pursuant to that she had illegally and arbitrarily appointed him in the NSE and even prior to that his wife also served as Regional Head of NSE at Chennai from April 2011. Further, it is alleged that the co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna by misusing her official position re-designated the post of accused Anand Subramanain as Group Operating Officer and advisor to MD from 01.04.2015 without bringing the same to the notice of NRC and the Board and substantial powers alike to that of MD were delegated to the present accused and he was in knowledge of important and confidential information regarding the working of NSE.

31. It is further alleged in the reply that the co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna had shared certain confidential information of NSE with the email rigyajursama@outlook.com. It is further alleged that during the interrogation, the present accused did not disclose the identity of unknown person(s) and the background of various email communications to the above email and during investigation, the contents of the above email were accessed in the presence of independent witnesses and it was found that relevant emails had been deleted by the accused with an intention to destroy the evidence. During the course of oral arguments, Ld. PP for CBI states that the said unknown person or the Himalyan Yogi was none other than the present accused Anand Subramanian, though investigations are still going on and the final picture will emerge at the time of filing of the charge sheet.

32. It is further alleged that during the investigations, it has been revealed that the present accused and co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna during the tenure at NSE had visited well known tax heaven, the investigation of which is also ongoing. It is also stated that the accused remained throughout evasive during the investigation. It is stated that it was the public duty of the accused to protect the interest of the common investors while being posted at NSE, rather he indulged in criminal conspiracy and caused huge advantage to various trading members/brokers, thus he has committed grave economic offence.

33. Considering the fact that the present accused was appointed/working as Chief Strategic Officer/Advisor to the MD w.e.f. 01.04.2013 and subsequently was re-designated as Group Operating Officer and Advisor to the MD on 01.04.2015. Further vide Board meeting dated 11.08.2015 substantial powers are stated to have been delegated to him. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the present accused is the Himalyan Yogi, to whom confidential information regarding the structure and working of NSE was shared on the email rigyajursama@outlook.com by the co-accused Ms. Chitra Ramakrishna, who is alleged to have been working in tandem in this alleged insidious conspiracy called co-location scam.

34. Regarding the triple test, the present FIR was lodged in the year 2018 and the SEBI has also initiated quasi judicial proceedings, as discussed above, which are also stated to have continued for a long time. There are no allegations that the accused tried to abscond at any point of time. Therefore, the accused cannot be said to be a flight risk. However, with regard to the tempering and influencing the witnesses, considering the fact that the accused was holding a pole position in NSE, the affairs of which are under investigation. Therefore, there are strong chances that he may influence the relevant witnesses or temper with the evidence, since the investigations are under progress and the charge sheet is yet to be filed, more so as it has already been alleged by the investigating agency that he has deleted number of emails, which were accessed during the investigation. As a resultant, the accused fails in this triple test at this stage.

35. Further the investigations are going on and the investigating agency is in the process of removing the secret veil to show to the Court the true face of this Himalyan Yogi, who is as elusive as anecdotal Himalyan Yeti. Further the prosecution at this stage of investigation is stated to be working on disjoint scattered dots, from which it has to conjure a final picture in the shape of a charge sheet. The investigations which are at the initial stage will crystalize into concrete form only after filing of the charge sheet.

36. Therefore, considering the grave and serious allegations against the present accused, as discussed above, no ground for his bail is made out at this stage. The application stands dismissed.

37. With these observations, the above bail application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Anand Subramanian for grant of regular bail stands disposed off accordingly.

38. Nothing expressed hereinabove, shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.