Rana Kapoor VS Directorate Of Enforcement - Supreme Today AI
Hi Guest, You are using a Trial - Expire on , Click Here to Subscribe to Upgrade your Plan!

2022 295 DLT 468 ; 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 812

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J.
Rana Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Appln.559 of 2022
Decided on : 25-11-2022

Point of Law: As per section 45 PMLA would be applicable, had applicant filed an application either under section 439 of Code after arrest during investigation.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, 406, 420, 468, 471 –Criminal Procedure Code 1973 - Section 88, 436A, 167(2), 440, 439, 438 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 44, 45, 3, 4 - Companies Act, 2013 – Section 212(6), 43 d(5) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 – Offence Punishable – First Information Report - Forgery for purpose of cheating - Amount of bond and reduction -Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property -Whether such accused was not arrested during investigation or had been released on bail during investigation.

Finding of the Court: court is of view that there is no need for any remand, then court can fall back upon Section 88 of Code and complete formalities required to secure presence of accused for commencement of trial - Of course, there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that accused will have to be heard - Therefore, in such a situation, an opportunity will have to be given to accused persons, if court is of prima facie view that remand would be required – Court make it clear that court have not said anything on cases in which accused persons are already in custody, for which, bail application has to be decided on its own merits -Suffice it to state that for due compliance of Section 170 of Code, there is no need for filing of a bail application

Result: Ordered Accordingly

Act Referred :
COMPANIES ACT : S.212(6), S.43(d)(5)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.167(2), S.170, S.436(a), S.438, S.439, S.440, S.88
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.406, S.420, S.468, S.471
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.37
PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT : S.3, S.4, S.44, S.45

Cases Referred:
Bimal Kumar Jain V Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Application bearing no 2438/2022 decided on 13.09.2022 - Referred
Bindu Kapoor Vs. CBI & Others, Roshini Kapoor Vs. CBI & Others - Referred
Directorate of Enforcement V Gautam Thapar & others, C.C.no. ECIR/11/HIU/2021 dated 15.06.2021 - Referred
Radha Kapoor Khanna Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. - Referred
Rajiv Anand Vs. State of Maharashtra - Referred
Siddharth v. State of UP, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 - Referred
Siddharth V State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676 - Referred
Santosh V State of Maharashtra, 2017 (9) SCC 714 - Referred
Satinder Kumar Antil V CBI, 2022 SCC Online SC 825 - Referred
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 - Referred

Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Ms. Stuti Gujral, Ms. Priti Verma Mr. Shaurya Singh, Mr. Prabhav Rali and Mr. Abhishek Pati, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, Special counsel, ED with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Mr. Ripudaman Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Batra, Mr. Nishant Chaudhary and Mr. Anurag Verma, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present bail application is filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as “the Code”) seeking bail in C.C.no. ECIR/11/HIU/2021 dated 15.06.2021 titled Directorate of Enforcement V Gautam Thapar & others pending in the court of Special Judge (PC Act, CBI-02), Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi.

2. CBI registered FIR bearing RC No.2232021A0005 under sections 120B and 406, 420, 468, 471 IPC at P.S AC-V, Delhi on basis of complaint received from Ashish Vinod Joshi, Chief Vigilance Officer, Yes Bank Limited against M/s Oyster Build well Private Limited and its holding company M/s Avantha Reality Limited, its Directors/Promoters namely Raghubir Kumar Sharma, Shri Rajendra Kumar Mangal, Shri Tapsi Mahajan and Gautam Thapar and unknown officials of M/s Jhabua Power Investment Limited, unknown known officials of Power Power Limited, unknown officials of M/s Avantha Holdings Ltd., unknown officials of M/s Avantha Power & Infrastructure Ltd. and unknown bank officials.

2.1 Thereafter respondent filed CC No. ECIR/11/HIU 2021 dated 15.06.2021 under sections 44 and 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) for commission of offence of money laundering as defined under sections 3 and 4 of PMLA which is pending in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Rouse Avenue Courts. It is alleged in complaint that subsequent to the removal of Rana Kapoor i.e. the applicant from management of YES Bank on allegations of granting various credit facilities to several companies by not following the banking norms thereby causing huge amount of losses to the YES Bank in lieu of illegal gratification, various complaints have been filed against applicant and one such complaint relates to the credit facilities to the extent of Rs. 514.27 Cr extended to Oyster Buildwell Private Limited (OBPL) causing a wrongful loss of Rs. 466.51 Cr to the YES Bank. The said complaint led to the registration of FIR bearing no. RC2232021A0005 dated by CBI, Delhi under sections 120(B), 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 against persons as mentioned hereinabove. It is alleged that above persons having committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal conspiracy and forgery for diversion/misappropriation of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document with a free account to LawCanvas