Mumbai: The Bombay High Court today said it would peruse the charge sheet filed against entrepreneur Jignesh Shah, arrested in the Rs 5,000-crore National Spot Exchange Ltd (NSEL) scam, before deciding on his bail plea.
Economic Offences Wing of city police yesterday filed a 9,000-page charge sheet against Shah, founder of Financial Technologies, the promoter of now-defunct NSEL, in a court here. EOW today gave a copy of the charge sheet to Justice Abhay Thipsay who posted the bail matter for hearing tomorrow.
The Judge said he would go through the document and raise queries, if he has any, and seek replies from the lawyers of Shah and prosecution. Thereafter, the court would pass order on the bail plea of Shah who was arrested on May 7.
The HC had earlier heard arguments on the bail plea from both sides but deferred the order till the charge sheet was filed to know what material has been placed against Shah.
Shah has challenged the order of the lower court which on June 24 rejected his plea on the ground that investigation in the scam was still on and he could tamper with evidence or hamper the probe if released.
Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Aniket Nikam, representing Shah, argued that he had played no role in the alleged scam. They contended Shah’s employees may have been involved in the payment crisis at the commodity spot bourse as he personally had no knowledge of what was happening at NSEL.
A group of investors, who have lost money in the scam, has also approached the court opposing bail to Shah, alleging he had knowledge of the scam that came to light in July 2013.
As per Shah’s lawyers, after his arrest, he cooperated with the investigating agency by providing relevant documents and disclosing all information he had. Hence, there was no question of his tampering with evidence.
Shah has argued that as a non-executive director at NSEL he was not involved in its day-to-day operations.
NSEL is part of Financial Technologies (India) Ltd Group founded by Shah. FTIL holds 99.99 per cent stake in NSEL which has maintained that payment crisis occurred due to complicity between certain erstwhile officials of the exchange and defaulting members.