HC Sets Rs 50 Lakh Costs for Accused's Return to India

GURUGRAM: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has told an accused living in Mauritius to return to India by October 18 and deposit Rs 50 lakh as costs if he wants to seek regular bail in a cheating and forgery case registered in Gurugram in 2021.

Justice Sanjay Vashisth passed the order while disposing of petitions filed by Santosh Mahalingam. The case against him was registered on July 17, 2021, at the DLF Phase-3 police station under IPC Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 467, 468 and 471 (forgery-related offences), 506 (criminal intimidation), 120-B (criminal conspiracy) and 34 (common intention).

The court kept the operation of the trial court orders in the case in abeyance till October 27. "Non-bailable warrants of arrest, if any, issued pursuant to the orders shall not be executed qua the petitioner," the bench said. Any look-out circular obtained by the investigating agency against him has also been kept in abeyance.

## The conditions

Mahalingam has been given liberty to return by October 18 and then apply for regular bail before the competent court within a week, and in any case not later than October 27.

The costs come with a short deadline. "The petitioner is burdened with costs of Rs 50 lakhs to be deposited by way of demand draft in the name of the Registrar-General, Punjab and Haryana High Court, within three days of his return to India, failing which this order would not be of any advantage to the petitioner," Justice Vashisth ordered.

The money will go to the High Court Dispensary Welfare Fund, to be used for financial and medical support to needy people through the dispensary. If Mahalingam does not pay within the time allowed, the amount will be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. The protection will lapse automatically if he fails to return by October 18.

## Rs 70 crore settlement offer set aside for now

Through his counsel, Mahalingam told the court he wanted to come back and join the trial, and offered to settle the money dispute with the complainant company for Rs 70 crore, paid in instalments, if he was given some protection.

The court said this was not the right stage to consider the settlement proposal and left it open for him to raise it before an appropriate court or forum.

Justice Vashisth said the relief was framed so that the trial does not drag on indefinitely because the accused is absent. "In a number of cases, this Court has repeatedly observed that where the proceedings are prolonged on account of the absence of the accused and the entire prosecution agency simply awaits the arrest of an accused for his appearance, a lot of time and energy get wasted in all this process," he said, adding that fruitful results could not come when an accused evades arrest.

Senior advocate Rajeev Anand, with counsel Simran Atwal, appeared for Mahalingam. Law officer Ruchi Sekri represented the state.

The allegations in the FIR have not been tested at trial. Whether Mahalingam returns within the court's window, and whether the trial court then grants him regular bail, will be known after October 18.