Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Accused in Money Laundering Case of Shakti Bhog Foods Limited - “Reasonable Grounds” for Involvement

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Delhi has dismissed the bail application of Mr. Tarun Kumar, a key accused in a high-profile money laundering case. The court, in its judgment delivered on July 18, 2023, cited “reasonable grounds” for believing that Mr. Kumar was actively involved in fraudulent activities and money laundering. The case revolves around allegations of diversion of loan funds and fraudulent increase of inventory in a company, Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL).

Justice Jasmeet Singh, presiding over the case, observed, “The evidence presented, including statements, emails, and documents, categorically leads one to infer that the applicant was directly involved in activities connected to the proceeds of crime.” The court highlighted the significance of Section 50 statements recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, considering them as important pieces of evidence that can be relied upon to reject bail.

The judgment referred to various emails that explicitly marked Mr. Kumar and revealed his role in the process of laundering the proceeds of crime. One such email mentioned in the judgment read, “Please find enclosed the Bank of Baroda current account details along with this mail. As discussed with Tarun Sir, an amount of INR 1.8 Crs needs to be deposited in this account by tomorrow morning.”

The court also relied on statements given by several employees of SBFL, further strengthening the case against the applicant. One employee, Sandeep Mishra, stated, “Tarun Kumar used to coordinate with entry operators for purchasing fake bills, and he was in complete knowledge about accommodation entries provided by entry operators to SBFL through their shell entities.”

While rejecting the bail application, the court emphasized that it was not required to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or make a finding of guilt. The decision was based on the assessment of the available material, which pointed towards the applicant’s active involvement in the offense of money laundering. The court clarified that the judgment did not express an opinion on the merits of the case but was solely rendered for the purpose of deciding the bail application.

This judgment underscores the court’s stance on the standard for granting bail in cases involving money laundering and fraudulent activities. It serves as a reminder that “reasonable grounds” for belief in the accused’s guilt require more than just prima facie evidence.

The dismissal of Mr. Kumar’s bail application comes as a blow to his defense, which claimed that he had no knowledge of any illegal transactions. The court’s decision to deny bail reflects its conviction that there exists sufficient incriminating evidence against the applicant. The case is set to continue its proceedings in due course, with the court’s focus now shifting to the trial.

Date of Decision: July 18, 2023

TARUN KUMAR vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Latest Legal News