IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Bhupesh Arora S/o Shri Gulshan Arora – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement through its Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. First Bail Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “ BNSS ”) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Bhupesh Arora seeking Regular Bail in ECIR/HYZO/46/2022 dated 14.10.2022 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”), registered in Hyderabad Zonal Office under Sections 3 /4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”).
2. A Complaint was filed against the Applicant on 27.08.2025 in Delhi and the investigations are complete. The Applicant states that he was arrested on 11.07.2025, in terms of Section 19 of PMLA and since then, he is in Judicial Custody.
3. The Applicant explains that he was in the business of providing gift cards to various Organizations and individual clients, through his Company in the name and style of Freebie Solution Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2022, he along with his family, shifted to Dubai and started Hospitality business therein.
4. On 26.02.2024, FIR No.24/2024 under Section 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India
Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar
Ranjitsing Brahamajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra
Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr.
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab
J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement
Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Nimmagadda Prasad vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement
State of Bihar and Anr. vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai
State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and Anr.
Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement
The court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA must be satisfied before granting bail in a money laundering case, and the accused's involvement ....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial probable causes to believe the accused is not guilty, the requirement to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence u....
A bail application under PMLA can be granted if the accused demonstrates that there are reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty and are unlikely to commit further offences while on bail.
(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 ....
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.