Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, the former Vice President (Accounts) at Bhushan Steel Limited while seeking bail argued that "Section 45 of PMLA is a slave to Article 21 of the constitution". He further argued that "when the Managing director, chairman, and promoters are granted bail. How does the principle of parity not apply in my case?". 

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri of the Delhi High Court recorded the submission of Tiwari's counsel and listed the matter for October 8, 2024, at 3 PM. 

Tiwari argued that he was merely an employee of Bhushan Steel Ltd, the parent company, but was neither a shareholder, promoter, nor director of the parent company. His involvement with the company was limited to that of an employee.

Tiwari further argued that "the fact that I had some supervisory control over 150 companies is a 'Red Herring". He further contended that not a single allegation showed that he benefitted from the proceeds of crime.

Tiwari elucidated that there were two major allegations against him- a). influencing other people to become directors in the 150 shell companies and b). inflating stock statements to increase Bhushan Steel’s drawing power. Tiwari, regarding the first allegation, argued that the witnesses who made such incriminating statements are still directors of these shell companies, including one Padam Kumar Agarwal.

Regarding the second allegation, Tiwari argued that during the finalization of the company’s accounts, he had noticed a sudden and unexplained increase in stocks in transit and debtors by approximately ₹5,000 crores. He claimed that this manipulation was carried out under the instructions of Neeraj and Brij Bhushan Singal, with assistance from the late auditor R.K. Mehta and Nitin Johri, who was out on medical bail.

Tiwari further citing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Vijay Nair and Manish Sisodia, reiterated that "bail is the rule and jail is exception". 

Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v ED (BAIL APPLN.-3210/2024)