The Supreme Court of India refused to grant bail on the economic offence of diversion of crores of loan amount to shell companies based on fake bills generated without any genuine business transaction.
Tarun Kumar, the Appellant-accused is aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application. The High Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the said bail application of the appellant seeking bail in connection with the Complaint Case arising out of offence 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.
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 (‘PML Act’), in continuation of the complaint, for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
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.
The Forensic Auditor conducted an audit review and disclosed 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.
The appellant was summoned by the respondent authorities for investigation and interrogation about seven times till the first complaint was filed by the respondent on 01.09.2021.
When the appellant was in attendance before the respondent under the call by the investigating authorities on 22.06.2022, he was arrested and on 18.08.2022 the fourth supplementary complaint came to be filed by the respondent arraigning the appellant as Accused No. 10. The bail application preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi also came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2023.
The first and foremost contention raised by Senior Counsel Mr. Luthra would be that the appellant was not named in the FIR nor first three prosecution/ supplementary complaints and has been implicated only based on the statements of witnesses recorded under the summons issued under Section 50 of the PML Act, without there being any material in support thereof.
The submission to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co-accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.
It was also observed that the appellant’s role was made out from the financials, where direct loan funds have been siphoned off to the sister concerns of SBFL, where the appellant was either a shareholder or director. In any case, the order granting bail to Raman Bhuraria being under consideration before the coordinate bench of the Court, it would not be appropriate for us to make any observation about the said order passed by the High Court.
When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the two-judge bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trived are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
