Section 84 BNSS | Mechanical Declaration as ‘Proclaimed Person’ Without Due Procedure Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail is the Exception, Not the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5 Crore Drug Racket Adopted Son Is Class I Heir—Collateral Relatives Cannot Challenge Will in Probate Court: Madras High Court Assignment of Leasehold Rights is Transfer of Immovable Property, Not Supply of Services: Bombay High Court Quashes GST Show Cause Notice Against Aerocom Irretrievable Breakdown Is Cruelty in Itself When the Marriage Has Become a Legal Fiction: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Sexual Intercourse by Deceitful Means Attracts Prima Facie Offence Under Section 69 BNS: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Proceedings in False Promise of Marriage Case Scheduled Areas Are Constitutionally Protected, Not Constitutionally Frozen: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Municipal Inclusion of Tribal Territories Death of Innocents Due to Spurious Liquor Is a Serious Blow to Society—Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Because Viscera Reports Are Inconclusive: Orissa High Court When the Sole Eyewitness Is Dead, Confession Alone Can’t Convict: Madras High Court Acquits Chain Snatching Accused Office of Advocate in Residential Building Not a Commercial Use: MP High Court Absence of Judicial Satisfaction Renders Declaration Under Section 82 CrPC Illegal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PO Order No Entitlement to Interest Beyond 1.5% Without Agreed Terms: MP High Court Dismisses Creditors' Appeals Against Official Liquidator's Adjudication Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not Appellate Review : Kerala High Court Refuses to Interfere with Pension Reduction Ordered Without Regular Disciplinary Enquiry Revenue Authorities Cannot Alter Mutation of Acquired Land Based on ‘Recalled’ Judicial Orders: Karnataka High Court Section 45 Cannot Justify Indefinite Detention - Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Defeats Article 21: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 223 BNSS | No Cognizance Without Complainant's Oath: Gauhati High Court 304A IPC | No Presumption of Rash Driving Merely Because of Accident: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Child Death Case Auction Purchaser Has No Absolute Right: Calcutta High Court Upholds Borrower's Right of Redemption Under SARFAESI Act 15 Days’ Notice Under TP Act Is Sufficient To Terminate Monthly Tenancy After Lease Expiry: Bombay High Court Indefinite Blacklisting Without Authority or Hearing is Civil Death in Disguise: Allahabad High Court Environmental Tribunal Cannot Be A Toothless Watchdog… It Must Act Without Waiting For The Metaphorical Godot: Andhra Pradesh High Court FIR Lodged After Marital Breakdown Based on “Emotional Outburst”, Not Rape: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Case Post-Divorce SARFAESI | Deposit Before Bank Can’t Be Treated as Statutory Pre-Deposit Before DRAT: Kerala High Court Truth Cannot Be Gagged by Injunction: Madras High Court Refuses Celebrity Chef’s Plea to Restrain Allegedly Defamatory Social Media Posts on Intimate Relationship Probate Not Mandatory for Will Executed in Keonjhar – Civil Court Can Decide Title Based on Unprobated Will: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Daughter’s Suit Against Valid Gift to Nephew

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