2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 18482
BELA M. TRIVEDI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ
TARUN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidharth Luthra
For the Respondents: S.V. Raju
The court emphasized that economic offences, particularly money laundering, require stringent bail conditions due to their serious implications for public trust and financial integrity.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d); Indian Penal Code, Sections 120B, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 44, 45 - Bail application - Dismissal of bail application by High Court, which highlighted appellant's significant involvement in fraudulent activities leading to economic dishonesty and loss to public funds - Court reinforced strong reservation on granting bail in economic offences due to their severity and implications for public trust. (Paras 4, 22, 24)
(B) Bail - Consideration of roles - The Court noted that Parity cannot be the sole ground for bail, and each case must be considered on its individual merits, especially in economic crimes where the consequences affect the community. (Para 19)
(C) Evidence - The admissibility of statements obtained under Section 50 of the PML Act was discussed highlighting their relevance to establishing involvement in money laundering. (Para 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was implicated in a money laundering case related to fraudulent activities at Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd., with significant financial implications; the bail application was rightly denied given the seriousness of allegations under the PMLA and IPC.
Findings of Court:
The appellant failed to satisfy conditions for bail relief under Section 45 of the PMLA, leading to the conclusion that involvement in economic crime warranted continued custody.
Issues: The court focused on whether there were sufficient grounds for believing the appellant was not guilty and whether releasing him on bail would allow him to commit further offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the importance of stringent measures against financial crimes, underscoring that the gravity of the offense and potential for community harm justified the refusal of bail.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application related to money laundering allegations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both appellant and respondent regarding the bail application. (Para 6) |
JUDGEMENT
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant-accused being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 152 of 2023 has preferred the present appeal. The High Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the said bail application of the appellant seeking bail in connection with the Complaint Case No. 20/2021 bearing ECIR /DLZO-1/12/2021 arising out of FIR No. RC0742020E0014, registered for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA Date: 2023.11.20 16:41:27 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified 1988 and under Section 120B read with sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The appellant was arrested on 22.06.2022 on the fourth supplementary complaint having been filed by the respondent under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PML Act’), in continuation of the complaint dated 01.09.2021, 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 in Case No. 20/2021, for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
3. The broad facts and events as discernible from the record may be stated as under:
(i) M/s. Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (SBFL) was engaged in manufacturing and selling food items under the brand name of “Shakti Bhog”. The company was managed through its Directors/Guarantors – Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, Sh. Siddharth Kumar and Smt. Sunanda Kumar. The appellant is the nephew of Sh. Kewal Krishan Kumar, and was shown as one of the employees in SBFL.
(ii) The consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India vide the Letter of Engagement dated 18.05.2018 engaged the services of a Forensic Auditor – BDO India LLP for conducting the Forensic Audit of SBFL.
(iii) The Forensic Auditor conducted audit review for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 and submitted the report on 25.06.2019, disclosing several financial irregularities and discrepancies in the functioning of SBFL, and alleged that SBFL had failed to discharge its loan liability and caused loss to the consortium member banks to the tune of Rs.3269.42 crores. (iv) An FIR being NO. RC0742020E0014 came to be registered on 31.12.2020 by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the basis of a written complaint given by the Bank Officials against the Directors/Guarantors of SBFL and against the Employees/servants and other unknown persons.
(v) Since the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were specified as the scheduled offences under the Schedule to the PML Act, an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/DLZO-1/12/2021 came to be recorded on 31st January, 2021 against SBFL and others with regard to the said FIR registered by the CBI against the accused for investigation of the commission of offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.
(vi) The appellant was summoned by the respondent-authorities for the purposes of investigation and interrogation for about seven times till the first complaint was filed by the respondent on 01.09.2021. Second and third supplementary complaints were filed by the respondent on 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 respectively. However, the appellant was not named in the said three complaints.
(vii) When the appellant was in attendance before the respondent pursuant to the call by the investigating authorities on 22.06.2022, he was arrested and on 18.08.2022 the fourth supplementary complaint
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
