The Bombay High Court on Thursday (September 11, 2025)dismissed a plea by Rajiv Ranjan Singh, former chief government officer of Karvy Stock Broking Limited (KSBL), searching for discharge from prison proceedings in the ₹2,700-crore consumer securities fraud case investigated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).
A Single Bench choose, Justice Amit Borkar, upheld the Special Court’s earlier refusal to grant discharge, observing that there was “sufficient prima facie material” to proceed towards Mr. Singh below Section 27(1) of the SEBI Act, 1992, which makes firm executives answerable for offences dedicated below the Act.
The prosecution, based mostly on SEBI inspection reviews, National Stock Exchange findings, and a forensic audit, alleges that KSBL illegally pledged and misused consumer securities value about ₹2,700 crore with out consent, in violation of SEBI circulars and the Code of Conduct for stockbrokers. Mr. Singh, as CEO on the time, is accused of overseeing operations and failing to train due diligence.
The case stems from investigations that started in 2021. On September 2, the Hyderabad Police arrested Karvy’s Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Singh, and Chief Financial Officer, G. Krishna Hari, following complaints from IndusInd Bank and others over alleged misuse of consumer securities. On September 22, 2021, the Enforcement Directorate carried out searches at six Karvy places of work in Hyderabad and, two days later, froze shares value roughly ₹700 crore belonging to Karvy CMD C. Parthasarathy and his household below the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
In the High Court, Mr. Singh’s advocates, Ashok Singh, Sameer Bothre and Arun Nile, argued {that a} SEBI adjudication order of April 2023 had not imposed any penalty on him, claiming this amounted to exoneration. He relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal (2011) to contend that parallel prison proceedings couldn’t proceed as soon as a regulator had absolved him.
Rejecting the plea, the Court stated, “The plea that the applicant stands exonerated in adjudication cannot be accepted as a ground for discharge. The adjudication order does not absolve him. On the contrary, it contains observations which point towards his responsibility. In view of Section 27(1) of the SEBI Act and the law laid down in Ramesh Singh, there exist sufficient grounds to proceed against him. Any discharge at this stage would amount to a premature assessment of evidence, which the law does not permit.”
The Court famous that the criticism depends on cogent materials such because the SEBI inspection report, NSE findings, forensic audit, and related financial institution and DP account statements. “All these disclose sufficient grounds to proceed. At this stage, the Court cannot weigh the sufficiency of the evidence as if deciding a trial. Even a strong suspicion based on such material is enough to frame charges.”
Justice Borkar emphasised that exoneration in regulatory proceedings bars prosecution solely the place there’s a categorical discovering of innocence. The SEBI adjudication order had recorded opposed observations, together with Mr. Singh’s energetic participation in the asset assortment drive and failure to train the diligence anticipated of a CEO.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, he stated, “If the material available raises a strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused, that is enough to frame charges and call upon the accused to face trial.”
“The Revision Application stands dismissed. The applicant shall face trial in accordance with law,” the Court ordered.
