Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

"No Bail for Accused in Money Laundering Case: Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Stringent Standards"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court, led by Justice Alok Kumar Verma, denied bail to Sandeep Gupta, an accused in a high-profile money laundering case. The decision, dated December 11, 2023, reiterates the stringent bail standards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002.

Sandeep Gupta, embroiled in allegations of fraudulent activities and money laundering, sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Gupta has been in judicial custody since March 14, 2023, linked to a complaint case (Special Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2021), connected with the Enforcement Directorate’s investigation (ECIR 01/DNSZO/2016).

The High Court's decision came after considering multiple charges of cheating and dishonest inducement against Gupta. He was accused of defrauding several individuals under the guise of facilitating admissions to the prestigious Himalayan Institute and Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun.

Justice Verma, in his judgment, noted, "The allegations against the present applicant are not without substance. The allegations are categorical and specific. A definite role has been assigned to the applicant." This statement underscores the Court's view on the gravity of the allegations and the role Gupta allegedly played in these fraudulent schemes.

The Court further emphasized the legal criteria for bail under the PMLA, stating, "The mandate of the Parliament is that the person accused of the offence under the Act should not be released on bail unless the mandatory conditions provided under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 are satisfied." This highlights the Court's commitment to upholding the legislative intent behind the stringent bail provisions in money laundering cases.

Representing the applicant, Mr. Aditya Singh argued for bail, pointing to the lack of direct allegations of money handling against Gupta. However, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Atul Bahuguna, Advocate, Central Government Standing Counsel, presented compelling arguments and evidence indicating Gupta's active role in the alleged offences.

Concluding the judgment, Justice Verma stated, "For the reasons afore-stated, and without expressing any views on merits of the case, I reject the bail application of the applicant." He also clarified that the observations made were confined to the bail application and should not influence the ongoing trial.

This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the seriousness with which the judiciary treats offences related to money laundering and the high threshold required for granting bail in such matters.

 

Date of Decision: 11-12-2023

SANDEEP GUPTA Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (PMLA)

Similar News