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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of bail application and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. background context on prior legal matters. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. details on the fraud and involvement of entities. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arrest details and summary of investigations. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. arguments relating to the legality of arrest. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. arguments against the ed's assertions. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. claims about witness credibility. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. challenging evidence presented by the ed. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 9. discussion on statements of witnesses. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 10. questioning the methods used by the ed. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 11. analysis of the prosecution's chart. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 12. legal stipulations regarding the burden of proof. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 13. legal principles on presumption of innocence. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 14. conditions for grant of bail under pmla. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 15. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 16. scope of bail conditions. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 17. discussion on the scheduled offences. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
| 18. criteria for establishing the nexus. (Para |
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.
Anticipatory bail granted in PMLA case due to agency's sudden coercive action post-arrest of its IO for bribery, prior cooperation shown, no custodial necessity evidenced, twin conditions under Sec 4....
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.
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.