IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Gautam Thapar - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Application No. 4185 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022
BAIL - MONEY LAUNDERING - SECTION 45(1) PMMLA - TWIN CONDITIONS - REVIVAL - APPLICANT - FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN OF AVANTHA GROUP - TERM LOAN OBTAINED BY OBPL FROM BANK - ALLEGEDLY DIVERTED AND SIPHONED OFF - APPLICANT INSTRUMENTAL IN GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME - HELD - APPLICANT NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
Applicant, the founder and chairman of Avantha Group, was arrested in connection with a money laundering case. The prosecution alleged that OBPL, JPL, and JPIL, all Avantha Group companies, entered into sham agreements to avail a term loan from the bank. The loan was allegedly diverted and siphoned off to repay facilities availed of by Avantha Group companies and for meeting other expenses. The applicant was instrumental in the generation of proceeds of crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The court noted that the applicant was the ultimate beneficiary of the Avantha Group and that he was instrumental in the generation of proceeds of crime. The court also noted that the applicant was likely to commit similar offences if released on bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail because he was the ultimate beneficiary of the Avantha Group and he was instrumental in the generation of proceeds of crime. The court also noted that the applicant was likely to commit similar offences if released on bail.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applicant's bail application.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in Complaint Case No.24/2021 filed under Sections 44/45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMLa') and arising out of ECIR No.11/HIU/2021 registered under Sections 3/4 PMLa by the respondent/ED.
Factual Background
2. Pithily put, the case of the prosecution is that subsequent to the removal of Sh. Rana Kapoor, the then MD and CEO of Yes Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Bank'), certain complaints came to be filed assailing his role in grant of various credit facilities to borrowers, in violation of banking norms and against receipt of illegal gratification, which resulted in huge loss to the Bank. One of these complaints was in relation to M/s. Oyster Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'OBPL'), a real estate company, which was extended credit facilities to the tune of Rs.514.27 crores, resulting in loss of Rs.466.51 crores to the Bank.
as a result, FIR/RC No.2232021a0005 was registered under Sections 120B/406/420/468/471 by the CBI against OBPL, the applicant and others, including unknown public servants and private persons, for having committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion/misappropriation of the public money during the period from 2017 to 2019. The investigation in the case is stated to be still pending.
The Prosecution Complaint
3. The present ECIR was recorded by the respondent under Sections 3/4 of the PMLa, followed by filing of the prosecution complaint on 01.10.2021. as per the complaint, avantha Group is led by the present applicant, being its Founder and Chairman. The companies primarily involved in the transaction in question were OBPL, M/s. Jhabua Power and Investments Limited (hereinafter, referred to as 'JPIL') and M/s. Jhabua Power Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'JPL'), which are a part of avantha Group and under the control and beneficial ownership (direct or indirect) of the applicant.
In December, 2017, JPL had signed an operations and management (O&M) agreement for its thermal power project with JPIL, which work was sub-contracted by JPIL to OBPL at higher monthly consideration. In the contract between JPIL and OBPL, a special clause was added, as per which, interest free security deposit to the tune of Rs.514.27 crores was to be provided by OBPL to JPIL. For extending of this security deposit to JPIL, OBPL sought a loan from the Bank, wherefore the Term loan in question came to be disbursed in its favor.
4. after the Term loan of Rs.514.27 crores was disbursed to OBPL, the funds were transferred to JPIL as security deposit. Reportedly, the said funds were utilized for retiring of avantha Group loans i.e., Non-Convertible Debentures of Rs.285 crores subscribed by Edelweiss in avantha Holding Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'aHL') as well as for repayment of existing debt of the Group companies to the tune of Rs.190 crores of aditya Birla Finance Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'aBFL').
5. It was alleged that the agreements entered into between OBPL, JPL and JPIL were 'sham'. Though the Term loan given by the Bank to OBPL was prima facie secured, inter-alia, by the pledge of 8 crore shares of CG Power, the said shares were already pledged with Edelweiss and aBFL, against whom the Group companies had pre-existing loan obligations. It was further alleged that OBPL was part of avantha Group and as such, was controlled by the applicant. It carried no business activity and had no employees working in it. It did not even have any experience in handling of O&M work of a thermal power plant and was shown to have been contracted by JPIL only to create a paper trail. Notably, the company neither provided any service under the agreement to JPIL nor received any consideration for the same.
6. It was also alleged that the Term loan taken by OBPL was routed from
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24
P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Another (2010) 14 SCC 496
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2005) 5 SCC 294
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46
Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694
State of Bihar and Another vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Another (1987) 2 SCC 364
State of Kerala vs. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784
P. Chidambaram vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 11 SCC 1
Moti Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1978 4 SCC 47
Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2009) 14 SCC 286
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54
Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260
Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others vs. Public Prosecutor
Devi Dass Gopal Krishnan Etc. vs. State of Punjab and Others (In all the appeals) (1967) 3 SCR 557
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2018) 3 SCC 22
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Ramendu Chattopadhyay (2020) 14 SCC 396
Ashok Dhingra vs. N.C.T. of Delhi (2000) 9 SCC 533
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439
Upendra Rai vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2017) 9 SCC 714
State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21
State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty (2012) 10 SCC 561
The triple test for grant of bail in cases involving economic offences under the PMLa is:
* Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence;
It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra.
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.