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

2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 16055

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J
AMIT ARORA – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-2727/2023



Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Ms. Namisha Jain, Mr. Dev Vrat Arya, Mr. Yuvraj Bansal and Mr. Pranay Chitale, Advocates; Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel & Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocate.

The right to live a healthy life is a fundamental right under Article 21, and bail may be granted on medical grounds even if statutory conditions are not strictly met.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Bail application - Applicant, a businessman, sought bail on medical grounds due to serious health issues, including morbid obesity and chronic diseases - The court noted that the applicant had cooperated with investigations and had deep roots in society, making him unlikely to abscond - The court emphasized that the right to live a healthy life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution - The applicant was granted bail with specific conditions to ensure his attendance at trial. (Paras 1, 14, 51, 57)

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Bail Application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “ Cr.P.C ., 1973”) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA, 2002”) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 (hereinafter referred to as “ED case”) dated 22.08.2022 registered under Sections 3/4 PMLA, 2002 at Police Station HIU, Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the “said ECIR”).

2. The Applicant has submitted that he is a Well-established businessman based in New Delhi renowned for his pioneering work in Airport Retail and Food & Beverages (F&B) with an Engineering degree from Delhi College of Engineering and MBA from IIM Bangalore. The Applicant has been conducting business operation since 2009 and owns various acclaimed restaurants across prominent airports in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai wherein he employs 500 people demonstrating his prominence in the industry and has held significant positions in various organisations such as Infosys, J&J, GM, Reliance Retail, Merril Lynch, and Halliburton. Further it is submitted that the Applicant is a law-abiding and peaceful citizen with deep roots in society. It is submitted that he is the only earning member of his family and has a permanent address in Gurgaon where he resides with his wife and four minor children.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the GNCTD released the Delhi Excise Policy for the Year 2021-2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “Excise Policy”) on 05.07.2021. After the fulfilment of all the procedures of tenders and allotment, the Excise Policy was implemented on 17.11.2021 by the GNCTD.

4. A complaint addressed to the Union Home Secretary by the Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor, NCTD vide D.O. Letter No. SLG/Conf./2022/75 alleging large-scale malpractice and corruption in the framing and implementation of the Excise Policy for the Year 2021-22 and the said Complaint dated 20.07.2022 was conveyed to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) by the Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide O.M. No. 14035/06/2022-Delhi-1 dated 22.07.2022 for necessary enquiry and action.

5. Thereafter, the CBI registered an FIR No. RC0032022A0053 (hereinafter referred to as “CBI case”) dated 17.08.2022 under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („ IPC , 1860‟ hereinafter) read with Sections 7/7A/8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station CBI, ACB, New Delhi against Manish Sisodia and 13 others accused persons in respect of irregularities and illegalities committed in framing and implementation of Excise Policy 2021-22.

6. It is submitted that the Applicant was never arrested or chargesheeted by the CBI in the predicate offence.

7. The ED registered ECIR No. ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 on 22.08.2022 wherein the Applicant was arrayed as Accused No. 9. The Applicant was summoned for the first time on 06.09.2022 during the stage of investigation wherein he cooperated to the fullest and continued to cooperate as and when he was summoned. However, on 29.11.2022 the Applicant was arrested by the Respondent.

8. On 06.01.2023 the Respondent filed the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint („SPC‟ hereinafter) arraying the Applicant as Accused No. 14. Consequently, on 23.01.2023, the Applicant moved an interim bail Application on the grounds of his wife‟s surgery scheduled for 01.02.2023 for removal of gall bladder stones which was granted vide order dated 30.01.2023 for a period of two weeks. The said interim bails were extended on subsequent occasions by the Ld. Trial Court and by this Hon‟ble Court till 12.04.2023 on the grounds of medical condition of Applicant‟s wife and daughter. It is submitted that the Applicant duly surrendered before Jail Superintendent on 12.04.2023 and during the period of interim bail the Applicant joined investigations on 11 occasions an

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top