Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Enforcement Directorate (ED), represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hussain, asserted that Archana Mittal had directly benefited from proceeds of crime related to significant bank fraud. The ED had filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the bail granted to Mittal. ED informed the court that Mittal was arrested on January 11 and was granted bail on February 14, 2024. 

Special Counsel Hussain argued that the bail was granted on the grounds that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which imposes strict conditions for bail, did not apply to Mittal as she was a woman. Instead, Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was applied.

Special Counsel Hussain contended that these grounds were inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in the Saumya Chaurasia case and, therefore, requested a final hearing in light of these contradictions.

Archana Ajay Mittal, represented by Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, argued that the ED's petition to revoke her bail should be dismissed, noting that both the main accused, Neeraj Singal, and her husband, who was accused of collusion, had been granted bail. These arguments were presented before the Delhi High Court in the ED's plea seeking the cancellation of Mittal's bail.

Senior Advocate Krishnan argued that the ED's interpretation was erroneous, stating that the Saumya Chaurasia judgment had been misinterpreted and that the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Kavitha's case supported their position. He further pointed out that the main accused, Neeraj Singal, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court, which observed that the trial would not commence soon due to the large volume of documents, exceeding one lakh. It was also highlighted that Mittal's husband, who faced charges of collusion, was already out on bail.

Senior Advocate Krishnan concluded by assuring the court that Archana Mittal had adhered to all bail conditions and had no intention of violating them.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, allowing the prayer for a final hearing, listed that matter for December 2, 2024. 

Recent Updates on the case: 

September 18, 2024: Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, former Vice President (Accounts) at Bhushan Steel, approached the Delhi High Court arguing that he was entitled to bail. It was submitted that while the promoters and other primary accused, including Neeraj Singal, Archana Mittal, and Ajay Mittal, were granted bail, he (Tiwari), as a mere employee of the company, should also be granted the same relief.

September 6, 2024: The Supreme Court granted bail to the main accused Neeraj Singal noting the prolonged period of his incarceration and the fact that the trial has yet to commence.

July 2024: The Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Nitin Johri, the former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Bhushan Steel. The court examined the report from AIIMS and noted that Johari had other comorbidities, including diabetes and elevated creatinine levels. 

Case Title: Directorate Of Enforcement v Archana Ajay Mittal (Crl.M.C. 2602/2024 & Crl.M.A. 9927/2024)