TARUN KUMAR Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
LAWS(SC)-2023-11-30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 20,2023

TARUN KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

VIJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2024-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT BHASKAR MHATRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2025-2-117] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY SINGH VS. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(PAT)-2025-2-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

BELA M.TRIVEDI,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Appellant-accused being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dtd. 18/7/2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 152 of 2023 has preferred the present appeal. The High Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the said bail application of the appellant seeking bail in connection with the Complaint Case No. 20/2021 bearing ECIR /DLZO-1/12/2021 arising out of FIR No. RC0742020E0014, registered for the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sec. 120B read with Sec. 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The appellant was arrested on 22/6/2022 on the fourth supplementary complaint having been filed by the respondent under Ss. 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PML Act'), in continuation of the complaint dtd. 1/9/2021, 11/10/2021 and 18/11/2021 in Case No. 20/2021, for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 4 of PML Act.
(3.)The broad facts and events as discernible from the record may be stated as under:
(i) 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.

(ii) The consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India vide the Letter of Engagement dtd. 18/5/2018 engaged the services of a Forensic Auditor - BDO India LLP for conducting the Forensic Audit of SBFL.

(iii) The Forensic Auditor conducted audit review for the period 1/4/2013 to 31/3/2017 and submitted the report on 25/6/2019, disclosing 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.

(iv) An FIR being NO. RC0742020E0014 came to be registered on 31/12/2020 by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi for the offences under Sec. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sec. 120B read with Ss. 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the basis of a written complaint given by the Bank Officials against the Directors/Guarantors of SBFL and against the Employees/servants and other unknown persons.

(v) Since the offences under Sec. 120B read with Ss. 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were specified as the scheduled offences under the Schedule to the PML Act, an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/DLZO-1/12/2021 came to be recorded on 31/1/2021 against SBFL and others with regard to the said FIR registered by the CBI against the accused for investigation of the commission of offence under Sec. 3 punishable under Sec. 4 of the PML Act.

(vi) The appellant was summoned by the respondent-authorities for the purposes of investigation and interrogation for about seven times till the first complaint was filed by the respondent on 1/9/2021. Second and third supplementary complaints were filed by the respondent on 11/10/2021 and 18/11/2021 respectively. However, the appellant was not named in the said three complaints.

(vii) When the appellant was in attendance before the respondent pursuant to the call by the investigating authorities on 22/6/2022, he was arrested and on 18/8/2022 the fourth supplementary complaint came to be filed by the respondent arraigning the appellant as the Accused No. 10.

(viii) The appellant filed a bail application in complaint case no.20/2021 before the Special Judge (PC-ACT), Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi on 18/10/2022, which came to be dismissed by the Special Judge vide the order dtd. 23/12/2022.

(ix) The bail application being No. 152 of 2023 preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Delhi also came to be rejected vide the impugned order dtd. 18/7/2023.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.