NSE Co-Location Scam: Delhi High Court Seeks CBI's Response On Bail Plea Of Former Group Operating Officer Anand Subramanian

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought response of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the bail plea moved by Former Group Operating Officer of the National Stock Exchange (NSE) Anand Subramanian in connection with the co-location scam case.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain issued notice on the plea while listing the matter for further hearing on July 7.

Anand Subramanian was denied bail by Special Judge of city's Rouse Avenue Courts earlier this month on May 12.

The FIR was registered in the year 2018 under sec. 204 (destruction of document or electronic evidence) and 120B (conspiracy) of IPC and relevant offences under the Information Technology Act and Prevention of Corruption Act.

CBI is probing an alleged improper dissemination of information from the computer servers of the market exchanges to the stockbrokers.

According to CBI, it was alleged that the probe revealed that former NSE CEO Chitra Ramkrishna allegedly hired Anand Subramanian as consultant in NSE without following the due procedure and also by coercing the HR Department.

Anand Subramaniam is presently in judicial custody.

Anand Subramanian was sent to CBI custody till March 6 which was extended further till March 9. He was then sent to judicial custody on Wednesday.

Anand Subramaniam, Chitra Ramakrishna and Ravi Narain were showcaused by the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) for various corporate governance lapses.

CBI had thereafter arrested Chitra Ramakrishna and a Special Court had sent her to CBI custody.

SEBI had levied penalties on Chitra Ramakrishna and others for violating rules while appointing Anand Subramaniam as Chief Strategic Advisor.

It was alleged by the probing agency that Chitra in conspiracy with Anand Subramanian influenced the NSE officials to facilitate him in having access to important decision making processes.

Case Title: Anand Subramaniam v. CBI