Tender Conditions Cannot Be Waived Or Relaxed If They Constitute Essential Eligibility Criteria: Supreme Court Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Section 28A Application Cannot Be Filed Against Appellate Court Order When Reference Under Section 18 Was Initially Rejected: Supreme Court Insurer Not Liable To Pay Claims If Insured Violates Policy Conditions Regarding False Declarations: Supreme Court 173(8) CrPC | Failure Of Investigation To Uncover Truth Violates Right To Fair Trial Under Article 21: Supreme Court Orders De Novo Investigation UAPA | Filing Of Charge Sheet Without Prosecution Sanction Does Not Entitle Accused To Default Bail Under Section 167(2) CrPC: Supreme Court 173(8) CrPC | Constitutional Courts Can Direct De Novo Investigation Even After Trial Commences To Prevent Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court Order 14 Rule 2 CPC | Power To Try Preliminary Issue Cannot Be Invoked Once Trial Of Issues Generally Has Commenced: Supreme Court Violation Of Article 22(1) & (2) | Arrestee Entitled To Release, But Investigating Agency Not Precluded From Re-Arresting If Due Procedure Is Followed: Supreme Court Section 134 Trade Marks Act | Power Of High Court To Notify Civil Judge (Senior Division) As Commercial Court Requires Re-Examination By Larger Bench: Supreme Court Trial Court Must Summon Essential Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC To Ensure Fair Trial; Conviction Based On Withheld Evidence Unstable: Allahabad High Court Arya Samaj Marriage Certificate Alone Does Not Prove Valid Marriage Without Essential Hindu Rituals: Allahabad High Court Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Chain Of Events Excluding Every Hypothesis Except Guilt: Supreme Court Contempt Of Courts Act | Tahsildar Cannot Stall Mutation Proceedings Contrary To Judicial Orders Under Pretext Of Pending Litigation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order XLI Rule 5 CPC | Appellate Court Must Balance Equities While Imposing Conditions For Stay Of Eviction Decree: Bombay High Court Medical Assessment Board Cannot Reassess Disability Percentage Determined Under RPWD Act: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Appeal Under Section 37 Of Advocates Act 1961 Is Amenable To Challenge Only Before Supreme Court Under Section 38: Delhi High Court Executive Instructions Cannot Unsettle Settled Seniority Or Override Statutory Rules Post-Facto: Andhra Pradesh High Court MACT Claim | Driver Colliding With Parked Vehicle Cannot Shift Liability Without Proving Negligence Of Owner Of Parked Vehicle: Gauhati High Court Absence Of Specific Findings In Statutory Enquiry Report And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents Are Relevant Factors For Granting Pre-Arrest Bail: Kerala High Court Section 7 & 13 PC Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Does Not Establish Guilt: Madhya Pradesh High Court Absence Of Female Police Officer During Arrest/Raid Does Not Vitiate Conviction Under Section 373 IPC: Bombay High Court Section 144 BNSS | Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Factum Of Marriage Cannot Be Decided In Quashing Proceedings: Gauhati High Court Failure To Subject Seized Contraband To Chemical Analysis Vitiates Prosecution Under NDPS Act: Kerala High Court Section 4 Cinematograph Act | Orders Refusing Chardikala Film Certification Passed By Regional Officer Without Statutory Delegation Are Coram Non Judice: 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 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