INVESTORS’ INTEREST PARAMOUNT- MADRAS HIGH COURT In the bail application filed by Mr. Devanathan Yadav, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan,

INVESTORS’ INTEREST PARAMOUNT- MADRAS HIGH COURT

In the bail application filed by Mr. Devanathan Yadav, the Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, after hearing submissions by Senior Advocate Mr. S.T.S. Murthi and Advocate Mr. Naveen Kumar Murthi appearing for Mr. Devanathan Yadav and Mr. Muniyapparaj appearing for the Prosecution and Mr. Arun C. Mohan, Mr. Harish Chowdhry, Mr. Thirumurthy and others appearing for the Investors, emphasized that the interest of the investors shall be of paramount importance.
The counsels appearing for Mr. Devanathan Yadav submitted that details of the properties have already been placed before the Court, and the same may be considered for the proper disbursal of payments. They further contended that appropriate securities and properties are available to facilitate such disbursement. It was also argued that continued incarceration of Mr. Yadav would not serve the interest of the investors. If Mr. Devanathan Yadav were released on bail, he would be in a position to secure necessary funds, thereby ensuring that all investors — including those from middle-class and lower-middle-class backgrounds — can be repaid, potentially in the form of stock.
Appearing on behalf of the investors, Mr. Arun C. Mohan, Mr. Harish Chowdhry, Mr. Thirumurthy and others raised concerns regarding the protection of investors’ interests. The counsel for Mr. Yadav assured the Court that all necessary measures would be taken to safeguard the investors’ interests, and that such protection remains the common objective of all parties, whether representing the accused or the prosecution.
It was further submitted that the present hearing pertains only to the bail application and not to the trial or a quash petition. Therefore, it is neither appropriate nor required at this stage to delve into every factual detail. The key issue before the Court is whether the petitioner can convince the Court, in good faith, that sufficient unencumbered properties are available to protect the interests of the investors.
However, Mr. Muniyapparaj opposed the grant of bail, stating that the properties submitted by the petitioner are encumbered and are subject to other legal complications.
Ultimately, the Court adjourned the matter to 18th August and directed the counsel for the Petitioner to file appropriate affidavits, board resolutions, and other relevant documents to demonstrate that the interests of the investors are adequately protected. The Court remarked that, regardless of the disputes between the parties, the individuals most affected are the investors, and it is their lives and their money that must be safeguarded.