Delhi HC refuses Anticipatory Bail to person alleged of Money Laundering [Read Judgment]

Delhi HC refuses Anticipatory Bail to person alleged of Money Laundering [Read Judgment]

Delhi High court - anticipatory bail - money laundering - Taxscan

The Delhi High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a person alleged of money laundering.

The applicant, Karunakaran Ramachandran requested anticipatory bail in respect of the FIR, an ECIR has also been registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA Act in which the petitioner along with other accused persons has been named and also alleged to have indulged in money laundering.

The complainant has alleged the applicant for awarding bogus contracts by ILRL to the 10 companies from 2010 onwards involving an amount of approximately Rs. 94 crores.

The petitioner contended that the complainant’s allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by the petitioner in specific and by the accused persons in general, is nothing but a falsehood and an afterthought.

The petitioner further contended that there are no allegations that the petitioner was the beneficiary, in any manner. In this regard, reference was made to the Status Report as well as the proceedings instituted by the complainant company before the NCLT, Chandigarh, where the petitioner has not even been impeded. Even though the said proceedings were instituted after the complaint was filed but no averment was made that the petitioner had induced the complainant to purchase shares of EIPL.

On the other hand the state contended that the bogus contracts were awarded during the petitioner’s tenure. Even if only two contracts were awarded during his tenure as a Director of the ILRL, but all the 10 contracts, worth approx. Rs. 94 crores, were awarded while he was the Managing Director of the ITNL.

The Single Judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while dismissing the application did not turn down the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking custodial interrogation of the applicant.

Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. We welcome your comments at

Related Stories

Related Stories