SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yogesh Khanna, J.
Chandra Prakash Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Bail Appln. 2470 of 2022
Decided On : 23-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manu Sharma, Mr.Nitesh Jain, Mr.Anuj Berry, Mr.Hridhay Khurana, Mr.Adrish Guha, Mr.Shiv Johar, Mr.Shreedhar Kale, Mr.Abhudaya Sharma, Mr.Somit Kumar Singh and Ms.Sanjana Mehra, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Spl.counsel with Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Mr.Siddharth kaushik and Mr.Kavish Garach, Advocates, for the Respondent with IO M L Meena, AD/ED.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of bail provisions under PMLA and the conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.

Headnote:

Bail - Money Laundering - PMLA - Section 45 - [MONEY LAUNDERING] - [BAIL] - [Section 19, Section 45 PMLA] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 19 and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and their applicability in the present matter. The court also referred to various legal precedents to establish the conditions for granting bail under PMLA. The court ultimately granted bail to the petitioner based on the broad probabilities and the period of custody, imposing certain conditions for the bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail petition after being in judicial custody for eight months. The respondent was investigating the petitioner's involvement in handling proceeds of crime and transferring funds of M/s.PACL through various companies. The petitioner was alleged to have dealt with the proceeds of crime and made transactions involving substantial amounts of money.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had been cooperating with the investigation since 2016 and had not been named in the ECIR. The court also noted that the main accused of scheduled offences and money laundering had either been granted bail or not arrested. The court ultimately granted bail to the petitioner based on the broad probabilities and the period of custody.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of bail under PMLA, the petitioner's involvement in handling proceeds of crime, and the conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the broad probabilities and the period of custody of the petitioner. The court also considered the lack of naming the petitioner in the ECIR and the bail granted to other accused in similar cases.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner on the basis of the broad probabilities and the period of custody, imposing certain conditions for the bail.

JUDGMENT

Yogesh Khanna, J.

1. This petition is filed for grant of bail to the applicant herein who is in judicial custody for the last eight months.

2. The respondent herein is investigating mainly (a) funds from one Prateek Kumar, his group companies and Mr.Shankarrao Borkar, his family members and his group companies to DDPL and Unicorn and other transactions connected with PACL (b) investments by M/s.Systematix Ventures Capital Trust (SVCT) in two companies namely M/s.DDPL Global Infrastructure Private Limited (DDPL) and M/s.Unicorn Infra Projects and Estates Private Limited (Unicorn); (c) certain transactions in relation to the sale of shares between SVCT and one Trinity Investments Private Limited (Trinity).

3. It is the submission of the learned SPP for the respondent the facts would disclose the petitioner was involved in dealing with the proceeds of crime and in transferring of funds of M/s.PACL through various companies and making transactions of purchasing of properties etc. in the manner stated herein below.

4. It is stated M/s.PACL has transferred Rs.101 crores to Borker Rao's company; Rs.2285 crores to Prateek Group of Companies and Rs.110 crores to 25 companies which then gave the said amount to M/s.Systematix Venture Capital Trust (SVCT). It is the case of the respondent out of Rs.101 crores, the Borker Rao's Company transferred Rs.26 crores to M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn; Prateek Group transferred Rs.94 crores to them and the 25 companies of associated companies of M/s.PACL transferred Rs.110 crores to M/s. DDPL and M/s.Unicorn. It is argued even though the petitioner allegedly joined the group in the year 2012 and left them in the year 2016 but during this entire period he handled these proceeds of crime and transfers were made at his instance and SVCT sold its shares in M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn to a company named M/s.Trinity, owned by brother in law of this applicant, though M/s.Trinity had no money and it was plying from its registered office at a residence.

5. M/s.Prateek Group also had shares in M/s.DDPL and in M/s.Unicorn which he got transferred on 09.12.2015 to M/s.First Virasat and on 22.03.2016 were then transferred to M/s.Trinity at the asking of this applicant. The statement of Manoj Gupta, the brother in law of the applicant was recorded who stated he was like a son to the applicant and whatever was done was at the instance of this applicant and the money which M/s.Trinity got to purchase the shares came from M/s.SVCT, which was in control of the present petitioner. Thus, this applicant was in control of M/s.Trinity; M/s.DDPL and M/s.Unicorn.

6. The learned SPP referred to the statements under Section 50 of PMLA and to questions put to Manoj Gupta; to the present petitioner and other witnesses to show the petitioner was dealing with the proceeds of crime and everything was going on as per his advice and he was having conclusive knowledge of the layers of crime and the return of Rs.110 crores was only at the instance of Lodha Committee and it would not reduce his crime. It is submitted though the petitioner has alleged he had nothing to do with M/s.PACL but the statement of witnesses as well as his own statement would reveal he was aware of the proceeds of crime of M/s.PACL and was dealing with it. Between 2009-15 M/s.PACL had transferred Rs.219 crores to M/s.B&B Group on the pretext of bogus land development charges; found to be bogus by the income tax authorities and M/s.B&B transferred Rs.38.32 crores to M/s.Dhananjay; managed and controlled by this applicant which further transferred Rs.26.62 crores in the year 2013-15 to M/s.Superstar of which the accused is promoter/controller and further Rs.1.32 crores to M/s. Roister, which purchased the property in the name of daughter of this applicant. It is stated funds were transferred to M/s.B&B and M/s.Superstar Exports at the behest of this applicant, thus, the present applicant handled the proceeds of crime and still the investigation of M/s.B&B

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top