HC refuses to grant bail in money laundering case due to pendency of investigation and non-cooperation of accused
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 10 September, 2021
Case details: Vijay Narendra Kumar Kothari v .Directorate of Enforcement - [2021] 129 taxmann.com 409 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Sandeep K. Shinde, J.
- Dr. Sujay Kantawala, Sujit Sahoo and Aditya Talpade for the Applicant.
- H.S. Venegaonkar, Adv. and S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was lodged against the accused company and its directors under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 120B of IPC, 1860, The Investigation revealed that the accused company and its directors remitted Indian Currency illegally abroad by submitting bogus import documents.
The Directorate of Enforcement recorded a complaint under provisions of PMLA, 2002 against the accused company and its directors for investigation. However, the investigation revealed that the accused fraudulently remitted funds to a Hong Kong-based company by submitting forged bills of entry and other import documents to IndusInd Bank.
The Applicant sought for his enlargement on bail in a case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement for the offence of money laundering punishable under sections 3 and 4. However, the Applicant relied on orders granting bail to co-accused.
High Court Held
Since the accusations against the applicant were different and in fact, while granting bail to co-accused, Court had observed that the applicant was kingpin and primary role was attributed to him, and thus, orders, granting bail to co-accused did not further case of the applicant.
Moreover, the applicant had not co-operated in respect of financial information of overseas companies and investigation was still going on and there was the likelihood of applicant meddling with an investigation if released on bail and, therefore, in consideration of nature of accusations against the applicant, his conduct and non-cooperation in the investigation, the applicant was not to be released on bail.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- Deepak Virendra Kochhar v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Bail Application No. 1322 of 2020, dated 25-3-2021] (para 3)
- Rana Kapoor v. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Bail Application No. (ST). 4999 of 2020, dated 25-1-2021] (para 9).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied