Delhi HC grants bail to defendants linked to Crores bank loan fraud arrested by ED under PMLA

Delhi High Court - surety - bank credit fraud - ED - PMLA - Taxscan

The Delhi High Court granted bail to the accused in connection with bank loan fraud arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (PMLA).

This case is unique in its kind, dealing with a bail application of the accused, Sai Chandrasekhar, for fraud with the company. The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered by Economic offenses wing (EOW) on the complaint regarding the infringement under Articles 409/420 and 120B IPC of deliberate manipulation / adulteration of stocks, the inventories of M / s Bush Foods Pvt. Ltd which resulted in huge account fraud of around Rs.1000 crore.

It was further found that M / s Bush Foods had benefited from a large working capital loan facility from various public sector banks under the consortium agreement of 19.10.2012 concluded between the company and the banks of the consortium comprising the banks Bank of India, Allahabad Bank, Bank of Baroda, Central Bank of India, PNB, Exim Bank, Standard Chartered Bank, DSB and HSBC Bank. The loan was used based on the inventory available from M / s Bush Foods and verification by the banks and secured by mortgage, load on the rice stock at the consortium bank. The Complainant has been informed that the current outstanding amount under the credit facility is over 714 crore, which exceeds the sanctioned amount of Rs. 700 crore.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, the applicant’s lawyer argued that the complaint under the investigation has already been filed and the investigation has been completed. The council said further investigation cannot be grounds for further incarceration and denial of bail. It is further argued that none of the evidence has been tampered with since 2013 and that the evidence in this case is documentary in nature and seized all documents, digital devices such as computers, hard drives, phones laptops, etc. which cannot now be falsified because they are in the possession of the respondent.

On the other hand, counsel for the Respondent stated that the Applicant conspired with other rival companies to deceive the company in question. It is noted that the petitioner played a key role in the negotiations and personally oversaw the inventory check.

Counsel for the Respondent also attempted to highlight the fact that the Applicant canceled the questionnaire prepared for the Distributor’s Due Diligence Exercise as he understood that Distributors were genuine and made changes in a survey. from distributors. All of these actions prove that he intended to commit fraud and manipulate the stock. It was argued that the court should observe how the present case involves the commission of the serious economic offense of laundering the proceeds of crime.

Judge Rajnesh Bhatnagar’s single-judge training noted that, since the twin bail conditions provided for in Article 45 of the PML Act were overturned by the Supreme Court and are neither reactivated nor resuscitated by the amending law, therefore, to date. , there is no stringency of these two conditions under the original section 45 (l) (ii) of the PML Act for the applicant’s release on bail. The provisions of article 439 of Cr. CP and the conditions therein will only apply in the case of the Applicant for bail.

The court observed that the applicant in the present case has been in detention since October 27, 2020, and nothing has been recorded to show that the applicant is at risk of absconding and according to the applicant’s lawyer, the applicant has obtained the He was allowed to go to Sri Lanka for two weeks and subsequently returned, which has not been denied by the Respondent. Regarding the issue of forgery, the evidence is documentary in nature and documents and digital evidence are in the custody of the prosecution.

Therefore, the court authorized the applicant’s bond on his personal bond in the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 / – with a bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court of first instance, provided that he did not leave the country without the authorization of the special court, the passport, if it is not already deposited, will be deposited with the special court, it will join the investigation as and when the needs of the prosecution service and it will not will not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses in any way.

Subscribe to Taxscan AdFree to see the judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan without advertising. We appreciate your feedback at [email protected]


About Author

Comments are closed.