Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed the bail application of Ram Kishor Arora, the Chairman of Supertech Group, amidst a money laundering case.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, in an order dated March 5, held, “The mere issuance of summons to another person or seeking leave of the Court to file additional evidence, without any other substantial grounds, does not warrant default bail”.

Arora, apprehended on June 27, 2023, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), had moved the high court for default bail, a motion dismissed by the court. Arora's plea rested on the assertion that the investigation remained unfinished upon filing of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet).

However, the court refuted this claim, underscoring the completeness of the investigation against Arora, despite the absence of specific forensic reports and additional summonses to other implicated individuals. Reiterating the statutory provision delineated in Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which mandates the conclusion of an investigation within a specified timeframe upon an accused's arrest and detention, the court emphasized that non-compliance with this requirement entitles the accused to default bail.

Previously, Arora had challenged a Trial court's decision, contesting his denial of default bail, contending that the investigation was still ongoing upon the filing of the prosecution complaint. Nonetheless, the high court maintained that the entitlement to default bail is only recognized if the charge sheet or prosecution complaint is not filed within the designated time frame.

The money laundering case against Supertech Group, its directors, and promoters originates from 26 FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing and scrutinized by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, involving the misappropriation of funds.

Per the charge sheet, the accused orchestrated a "criminal conspiracy" to dupe home buyers by collecting funds in advance against flats booked in their real estate projects, yet failed to deliver possession promptly, thereby defrauding the general public. The ED alleged that the diverted funds were utilized to purchase land in the name of other group companies, subsequently leveraged as collateral to secure loans from financial institutions. The ED contended that the accused individuals have illicitly gained from the proceeds of crime through their involvement in criminal activities related to scheduled offences.

Case Title: Ram Kishor Arora v Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr