Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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 8:19 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