MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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