Even 1.5 Years in Jail Doesn’t Dilute Section 37 NDPS Rigour: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail in 710 Kg Poppy Husk Case Stay of Conviction Nullifies Disqualification Under Section 8(3) RP Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Quo Warranto Against Rahul Gandhi Custodial Interrogation Necessary to Uncover ₹2 Crore MGNREGA Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail for Vendors in Corruption Case Order 41 Rule 23 CPC | Trial Court Cannot Decide Title Solely on a Vacated Judgment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Strikes By Bar Associations Cannot Stall Justice: Allahabad High Court Holds Office Bearers Liable for Contempt if Revenue Suits Are Delayed Due to Boycotts To Constitute a Service PE, Services Must Be Furnished Within India Through Employees Present in India: Delhi High Court Medical Negligence | State Liable for Loss of Vision in Botched Cataract Surgeries: Gauhati High Court Awards Compensation Waiver of Right Under Section 50 NDPS is Valid Even Without Panch Signatures: Bombay High Court Agricultural Land Is 'Property' Under Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937: A.P. High Court Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Failure to Inform Detenu of Right to Represent to Detaining Authority Vitiates NSA Detention: Gauhati High Court Awarding Further Interest On Penal Charges Is Contrary To Fundamental Policy Of Indian Arbitration Law: Bombay 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)

Latest Legal News