Delhi High Court
Siddharth Kumar vs Enforecement Directorate on 19 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
Bench: Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 19, 2024
+ BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023, CRL.M.A. 29686/2023
SIDDHARTH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Mr.Yash
Datt and Mr.Deepak Tuteja,
Advocates.
versus
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
with Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Mr.Kartik
Sabharwal and Mr.Kunal Kochar,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGMENT
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.
1. An application for bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) has been preferred on behalf of petitioner
Siddharth Kumar seeking regular bail in ECIR/ 12/DLZO-I/2021 dated
31.01.2021 registered under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
2. Brief facts for the purpose of disposal of present application are culled
out from para ‘3’ of order dated 29.01.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court on an application for bail preferred on behalf of co-accused Tarun
Kumar which has been reported as Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director
Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486. The application
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 1 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
preferred on behalf of co-accused Tarun Kumar was thereby dismissed:
“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 Auditof
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.”
3. It is further the case of Enforcement Directorate that the consortium of
banks led by State Bank of India engaged the services of BDO India LLP for
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 2 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
conducting forensic audit of SBFL and the Forensic Auditor submitted the
Audit Review for the period of 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 vide report dated
25.06.2019.The Forensic Auditor reported many discrepancies and
investigation revealed that accused including Siddharth Kumar
(petitioner) and Tarun Kumar were actively involved in the illegal
transactions mentioned in the Forensic Report. SBFL was further found to
have resorted to diversion of loan funds, round tripping and money
laundering.
It was also revealed that SBFL was a family managed business mainly
for the profit of Kewal Krishan Kumar and other family members and the
key decision making was kept in the hands of Kewal Krishan Kumar,
Siddharth Kumar (petitioner), Tarun Kumar, Divyarth Kumar and
Sunanda Kumar by virtue of Directorship, Shareholding or being Authorized
Signatories. The inflated inventory/stocks in the Books of Accounts was
accompanied with increased borrowings and the loans were taken keeping
stocks as a base of borrowings. Subsequently, in the Board of Directors’
Meeting dated 10.02.2016, Directors of SBFL in league with Siddharth
Kumar (petitioner), Tarun Kumar, Raman Bhuraria fraudulently declared
the stock worth Rs.3035.52 crores as obsolete/damaged by pest.
4. Investigation also revealed that Shri Kewal Krishan Kumar, Tarun
Kumar, Siddharth Kumar (petitioner), Raman Bhuraria (CA) and others
were involved in paper sale transaction without conducting any actual
business transactions which resulted in false inflation of financials. The
complex web of transactions is stated to have been created and borrowed
funds were channelized through bank accounts of several Shakti Bhog
entities and shell entities operated inter alia by Devki Nandan Garg and
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 3 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
Ashok Kumar Goel.
5. As per Enforcement Directorate, 20 accused have been arrayed in
proceedings including SBFL and the evidence against the petitioner has
been highlighted in paragraphs 15 to 20 of reply dated 12.07.2023 as under:
“15. Siddharth Kumar was not only Director/Promotor in Shakti Bhog
Foods Limited (SBFL) but also an active Director in SBFL’s group
companies- Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd., Elanza Investment Pvt. Ltd.,
Sumesh Financers Pvt. Ltd., Goel Securities & Credits Limited, Divyarth
Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. etc. That Siddharth Kumar was actively assisted in
the day to day functioning of SBFL. Shareholding pattern and details of
directorship of Siddharth Kumar in SBFL and its group companies are
given below:-
Sr. Name of Shareholding details of Siddharth (Individual)
No. Companies Kumar’s directed companies Shareholding
where of Siddharth
Siddharth Kumar in
Kumar was Shakti Bhog
Director Group
Companies
1. Shakti Bhog 1. Shakti Bhog Snacks Ltd. Shakti Bhog
Foods (99.99%) Snacks
Limited 2. Bhawana Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Limited
(0.06%)
3. Kumar Foods Industries Ltd.
(4.83%)
4. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (0.05%)
5. Sumesh Financers Pvt. Ltd.
(0.88%)
6. Goal Securities & Credits
Limited. (9.01%)
7. Pancy Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(3.10%)
8. Divyarth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
(37.69%)
9. Crest Agro Foods Ltd.
(2.47%)
10. Dash Exports Private Limited
(11.63%)Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 4 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
11. Prince Foods Tech Private
Limited. (41.61%)
2. Bhawna 1. Kumar Foods Industries Ltd. Bhawana
Portfolio Pvt. (8.54%) Portfolio Pvt.
Ltd. 2. Goal Securities & Credits Ltd.
Limited. (0.70%)
3. Crest Agro Foods Ltd.
(0.01%)
4. Vizzy Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
(0.58%)
5. Dash Exports Private
Limited. (14.14%)
6. Prince Food Tech Private
Limited. (5.06%)
3. Divyarth 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.
Leasing & (46.93%)
Finance Pvt. 2. Kumar Food Industries Ltd.
Ltd. (5.0%)
3. Sumesh Financers Pvt. Ltd.
(37.39%)
4. Goal Securities & Credits
Limited (36.21%)
5. Vital Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(0.30%)
6. Crest Agro Foods Ltd.
(2.48%)
7. Shubhangi Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
(15.11%)
8. Dash Exports Private
Limited. (29%)
9. Prince Foods Tech Private
Limited. (6.28%)
4. Elanza 1. Kumar Food Industries Elanza
Investment Ltd.(3.33%) Investment
Pvt. Ltd. 2. Goal Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd.
Limited. (9.36%)
5. Goal 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Goal
Securities & (3.79%) Securities &
Credits 2. Kumar Food Industries Ltd. Credits
Limited (4.97%) Limited
3. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (4.65%)
4. Elanza Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(0.69%)
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 5 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
5. Kalyani Finvest Private
Limited (1.54%)
6. Pancy Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(11.62%)
7. Divyarth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
(13.69%)
8. Vital Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(7.02%)
9. VizzyFinvest Pvt. Ltd.
(1.78%)
10. Phlox Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(94.97%)
11. Dash Exports Private Limited
(6.5%)
6. Divyarth 1. Kumar Food Industries Ltd.
Healthcare (4.41%)
Pvt. Ltd.
7. Vital 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Vital
Holdings (9.67%) Holdings
Pvt. Ltd 2. Kumar Food Industries Ltd. Pvt. Ltd.
(4.80%)
3. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt.
Ltd. (3.28%)
4. Kalyani Finvest Private
Limited.(0.36%)
5. Pancy Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(0.25%)
6. Dinkar Holding Pvt. Ltd.
(19.60%)
8. Dinkar 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. Dinkar
Holding (0.62%) Holding Pvt.
Pvt. Ltd. 2. K.D.M. Media Pvt. Ltd. Ltd.
(8 .52%)
3. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (0.23%)
4. Sumesh Financers Pvt. Ltd.
(7.55%)
5. Pancy Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(42.28%)
6. Crest Agro Foods Ltd.
(30.84%)
7. Shubhangi Finvest Pvt. Ltd.
(53.02%)
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 6 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
9. Fruto 1. Kumar Food Industries Ltd. Fruto Freesh
Freesh Pvt. (4.22%) Pvt. Ltd.
Ltd.
10. Crest Agro 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. -
Foods Ltd. (0.40%)
2. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (0.10%)
3. Elanza Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(0.65%)
4. Kalyani Finvest Private
Limited.(0.05%)
5. Phlox Investment Pvt. Ltd.
(3.15%)
11 Shubhangi 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. -
Finvest Pvt. (0 .61%)
Ltd. 2. KD.M. Media Pvt. Ltd.
(9.20%)
3. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (7.80%)
4. Sumesh Financers Pvt. Ltd.
(7 .55%)
5. Dinkar Holding Pvt. Ltd.
(11 .10%)
6. Crest Agro Foods Ltd.
(30.84%)
7. Dash Exports Private Limited.
(29%)
12. VizzyFinvest 1. Bhawna Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. VizzyFinvest
Pvt. Ltd. (0.48%) Pvt. Ltd.
2. Kumar Food Industries Ltd.
(4.96%)
3. Divyarth Leasing & Finance
Pvt. Ltd. (3.56%)
4. Pancy Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
(5.82%)
5. Divyarth Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.
(8.67%)
13 Sumesh - -
Financers
Pvt. Ltd.
14. Divyashakti - -
Hospitality
Pvt. Ltd.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 7 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
16. That the above companies not only received PoC directly from
SBFL but also through other group companies and then, changing its
colour, lent to SBFL itself in the form of loan/ Compulsory Convertible
Debentures (CODs) and charged interest on the same from SBFL itself.
That Siddharth Kumar was either director or shareholder in the above
companies which provided platform to launder funds of SBFL.
17. SBFL had also active role and involvement in the offence of
committed while using LC facility from lending banks. Siddharth Kumar
was authorised signatory in Standard Chartered Bank and various other
banks for Shakti Bhog Foods Limited, Crest Agro Foods Ltd and other
companies. During the period 2013-2017, LCs valuing Rs. 111.26 crores
were crystallised by SBFL on the strength of fake bills without any
genuine business transactions with shell companies-M/s Lachhu Ram
Aggarwal & Co., M/s Annpurna Trading Company, M/s Ganesha
Overseas, M/s Sarthak Trading Company and M/s Mayank Enterprises.
Apart from procurement of fake invoices from these shell entities, fake
transport invoices for these LCs were arranged under the aegis of Tarun
Kumar and Siddharth Kumar on some of which fake PANs were found
mentioned.
18. That Shakti Bhog Foods Limited, under directorship of Siddharth
Kumar, claimed damage to stock worth Rs.3035.52 crore due to false
inflation in the stock inventory. Despite opportunity being given,
Siddharth Kumar failed to reveal information about the parties to whom
the so called damaged stock was sold and the location of the sale
proceeds. During the course of investigation, statement of employees of
SBFL was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002. Abdul Hasan Ansari, GM
(Accounts), SBFL in his statement given u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 stated
that “I want to state that SBFL was involved in bogus purchases from
shell entities and payments were made to these shell entities from credit
facilities availed from lender banks. On being asked I want to state that
funds transferred into shell entities on basis of fake bills were either
round tripped into bank accounts of SBFL to inflate turnover or further
transferred into bank accounts of other dummy entities for layering of
funds or transferred into sister concern of SBFL without any actual
business. On being asked I want to state that these paper transactions
were done on instructions of KK Kumar & Siddharth Kumar. Raman
Bhuraria used to aid and advise in these transactions. I want to state that
these paper transactions were done in assistance of Tarun Kumar,
Sandeep Mishra, Vijay Malhotra, Anshu Gautam & myself.” These
statements found reverberations in the statements of Sandeep Mishra,
Manager Accountant (SBFL), Avik Das, Vijay Malhotra, CFO and Ashok
Kr. Goel, Entry Operator recorded u/s50 of PMLA, 2002.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 8 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
19. That Siddharth Kumar managed and controlled export business of
SBFL with its Dubai Based overseas subsidiary – M/s Shakti Bhog, FZE
but out of the goods exported to this company, export proceeds worth
Rs.150 Crore were not reported in the books of accounts of SBFL, nor
were the same repatriated back to India. It is further submitted that
statement of Jagdeep Vashist, Employee of SBFL was recorded u/s 50 of
PMLA, 2002 on 02.07.2021, wherein he inter alia stated that export
turnover of SBFL is Rs. 400 Cr annually, however foreign inward
remittance of approx. Rs. 100-120 Cr only has been received in bank
accounts of SBFL. From the foregoing, it is found that significant amount
of funds towards proceeds of exports have not been repatriated. Despite
frequent opportunities, Siddharth Kumar failed to produce details of the
said funds and its location.
20. That Siddharth Kumar is the beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.
From FY 2008-09 to FY 2016-17, he acquired proceeds of crime
totalling to Rs.50,34,58,099/- from Shakti Bhog Foods Limited and
various other group companies out of which Rs.11.32 Crore was
transferred in the form Remuneration, Rs. 44.35 lacs as Rent and
Rs.85.71 Lacs as Reimbursement of Expenses. The above accounting
data has been calculated on the basis of Tally data recovered from the
premises of one of the employees namely Abdul Hasan Ansari, General
Manager (Accounts) in SBFL.
21. That Siddharth Kumar had dran significant remunerations.
Investigations revealed that from F,Y, 2008-09 to F.Y. 2015-16, he
received remuneration of Rs.11.32 Crore which was not commensurate
with work undertook by him for the compoany or education
qualifications. Siddharth Kumar is educated the 12th standard only.
From FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 his annual remuneration was Rs.1.80
Crore per annum which was more than the remuneration received by the
highly qualified professionals of SBFL (Rs.1.5 lacs per month).”
6. It is further the case of Enforcement Directorate that during
investigation, it was revealed that the Letter of Credit (‘LC’) was opened
against dummy entities and fake bills were countersigned by the petitioner
for the purpose of reflecting inflated turnover and siphoning of the loan
funds. Reference in this regard is further made to Bills of Exchange (‘BOE’)
of Lachhu Ram Aggarwal & Co. and M/s. Annpurna Trading Company for
the year 2015. In support of the same, statements of officials of concerned
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 9 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
Company are stated to have been recorded under Section 50 PMLA
including Abdul Hasan Ansari, General Manager (Accounts). It is pointed
out that from SBFL, funds for sum of Rs.1 crore and Rs.1.5 crores were
transferred to the sister concerns under authorisation of the petitioner and
further petitioner was also an authorised signatory for purpose of receiving
refunds in the aforesaid sister concerns. Petitioner is also stated to be a
beneficiary of about Rs.11.32 crores of the proceeds of crime.The amounts
were transferred from M/s Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. (‘SBFL’) to Vizzy
Finvest Pvt. Ltd and Elanza Investments Pvt. Ltd. unauthorisedly, wherein
the petitioner is an Authorised Signatory. The amounts are further stated to
have been transferred from Vizzy Finvest Pvt. Ltd and Elanza Investments
Pvt. Ltd. to M/S S.R. Foils and Tissue Ltd.
7. It may also be noticed that the prosecution complaint was initially
filed by Enforcement Directorate on 01.09.2021, and the third
supplementary prosecution complaint was filed on 18.08.2022 inter alia
arraying the petitioner as an accused.
Contentions on behalf of the petitioner
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
involved with domestic marketing and in the Export Division of M/s Shakti
Bhog Foods Ltd., through a company named Shakti Bhog FZE operating out
of Dubai. Further, various documents were signed by the petitioner at the
behest of his father Kewal Krishan Kumar. The allegations regarding
alleged fraud and money laundering are vehemently denied and it is urged
that they can be ascertained only during trial. The role of the
applicant/petitioner is further stated to be much less than of co-accused
Tarun Kumar whose bail was declined by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 10 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasizes that petitioner
has spent over 26 months in custody, which is about little less than 1/3rd of
the maximum punishment for offence under Section 4 of PMLA. It is
contended that seriousness of offence cannot be used as a basis to deny bail,
since the trial is protracted. He further urges that veracity of statements of
witnesses recorded under Section 50 of PMLA is a matter of trial and cannot
be accepted as gospel truth. In support of the contentions, reliance is placed
upon Mehboob Dawood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 2 SCC 362;
Rajendra Shah v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bob. 13099;
Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons
and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(Civil) No. 406/2013, order dated
23.08.2024; TZ Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and Another, (1983) 1 SCC 177;
Shyam Lal v. State, 1968 SCC OnLine All 34; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaik v.
State of Maharashtra and Another, Criminal Appeal No 2787 of 2024;
Sanjay Raghunath Agarwal v. The Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.)
No.1655 of 2023 decided on 20.04.2023; Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate
of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 3205/2024; Prem Prakash v. Union of
India through the Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 637; Manish
Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No.8772 of 2024; Rabi
Prakash v. The State of Odisha , SLP (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023; Union of
India v. K.A. Najeeb, 2021 3 SCC 713; Ram Kishan v. Harmeet Kaur &
Anr., (1972) 3 SCC 280; Baijnath Sah v. State of Bihar, (2010) 6 SCC 736;
Raman Bhuraria v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Appln. 4330/2021
decided on 08.02.2023; Parasmal Lodha v. Assistant Director, Directorate
of Enforcement, Bail Appln. 835/2017 decided on 29.05.2017; Amarendra
Dhari Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bail Appln. 2293/2017 decided
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 11 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
on 05.08.2021; C.P. Khandelwal v. E.D., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1094;
Neeraj Singal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No.8439-8440 of
2024 decided on 06.09.2024; Sunil Dhammani v. Directorate of
Enforcement, Criminal Appeal 4108 of 2024 decided on 03.10.2024; G.
Udayan Dravid & Ors. v. State & Others, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1484 and
Sanjay Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Appln. 3807/2022 decided on
07.03.2024. Written submissions were also filed on record.
Contentions on behalf of Enforcement Directorate
10. On the other hand, application is vehemently opposed by Shri Zoheb
Hossain, Special Counsel for Enforcement Directorate. At the outset, he
points out that role of the petitioner is graver than co-accused Tarun Kumar,
whose bail application stands rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Petitioner is stated to be son of Kewal Krishan Kumar, who was the main
Promoter and Managing Director of SBFL, while Tarun Kumar was the
Vice President of SBFL and nephew of Kewal Krishan Kumar. The
averments raised by the petitioner with reference to the status of petitioner in
predicate offence, parity with co-accused Raman Bhuraria (CA) who was
granted bail by this Court and delay in completion of trial are stated to have
also been raised by co-accused Tarun Kumar, whose bail application was
rejected. It is pointed out that Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the admissibility
of Section 50 PMLA and the statements of the witnesses recorded therein
and points out that material evidence against the petitioner cannot be
ignored. Co-accused Kewal Krishan Kumar and Devki Nandan Garg are
stated to have been granted bail on medical grounds invoking proviso to
section 45 PMLA. The role of Raman Bhuraria (CA) is further stated to be
distinguishable since he was only an internal auditor of SBFL.
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 12 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
11. Learned Special Counsel for Enforcement Directorate further
emphasizes that delay in conduct of trial cannot be sole ground to grant bail
ignoring the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. Reliance is further
placed upon Satyender Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP
(Crl) 6561/2023 decided on 18.03.2024; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors.
v. UOI, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929; State of Bihar &Anr. v. Amit Kumar,
(2017) 13 SCC 751; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018)
11 SCC 46; Amanatullah Khan v. Directorate of Enforcement, Bail
Appln.795 of 2024 decided on 11.03.2024 by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court; Religare Finvest Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.,
CRL.M.C.796 of 2021 decided on 14.06.2021 by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court.
He further submits that reliance placed by learned counsel for
petitioner on Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2023
INSC 956, to contend that petitioner is entitled to bail solely on the ground
of long period of incarceration and delay in trial, is misplaced since the
Court neither held that the mandatory twin conditions are not to be
considered, nor laid down any thumb rule that bail has to be granted in
PMLA cases, ignoring the mandatory twin conditions. Written submissions
were also filed on record.
12. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
Apart from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 50
of PMLA, the data manifesting relationship of stock, turn over and
borrowings by SBFL reflects that SBFL started taking loans from different
banks with the help of inflated turn over and fictitious closing stocks.
The data reflected by Enforcement Directorate in para 12 of reply to
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 13 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
the bail application is pertinent to be noticed and may be reproduced for
reference:
The fact that the stock worth Rs.3035.52 crores was declared as
obsolete/damaged by pest without suitably accounting for the same, prima
facie, reflects mala fide intention. There appears to be sufficient material on
record, which reflects that the petitioner was knowingly involved in the
process and also appears to be the beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime.
13. In the facts and circumstances, there do not appear to be reasonable
grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty of offence as provided
under Section 45 of PMLA. Considering the evidence on record, serious
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 14 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19
nature of economic offence whereby the public funds to the tune of
Rs.3035.52 crores have been siphoned off, and the fact that application
preferred on behalf of co-accused Tarun Kumar stands rejected by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
petitioner is not entitled to bail.
Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 19, 2024/sd
Signature Not Verified BAIL APPLN. 1839/2023 Page 15 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:DINESH CHANDRA
Signing Date:19.11.2024
15:08:19