The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the bail application of Ram Kishor Arora, the Chairman of Supertech Group, amidst a money laundering case.

In an order dated March 5, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that "The mere issuance of summons to another person or seeking leave of the Court to file additional evidence, without any other substantial grounds, does not warrant default bail."

Arora, who was apprehended on June 27, 2023, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), had approached the high court seeking default bail. However, the court dismissed his motion. Arora's plea was based on the argument that the investigation was still incomplete at the time of filing the prosecution complaint (charge sheet).

Nevertheless, the court rejected this assertion, emphasizing the thoroughness of the investigation into Arora, despite the lack of certain forensic reports and additional summonses to other implicated individuals. The court reiterated the statutory provision outlined in Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which stipulates the completion of an investigation within a specified timeframe following an accused person's arrest and detention. Emphasizing that failure to adhere to this requirement entitles the accused to default bail, the court underscored its stance.

Earlier, Arora had challenged a decision of the Trial court, disputing his denial of default bail, arguing that the investigation was still in progress at the time of filing the prosecution complaint. However, the High Court upheld that entitlement to default bail is only acknowledged if the charge sheet or prosecution complaint is not submitted within the specified timeframe.

The money laundering case involving Supertech Group, its directors, and promoters stems from 26 FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing. These FIRs were subsequently examined by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for purported criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery, all revolving around the alleged misappropriation of funds.

As per the charge sheet, the accused orchestrated a "criminal conspiracy" aimed at deceiving home buyers. They allegedly collected funds in advance for flats booked in their real estate projects but failed to deliver possession promptly, thereby defrauding the general public. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) asserted that the diverted funds were used to acquire land in the name of other group companies.

These properties were then leveraged as collateral to obtain loans from financial institutions. The ED further contended that the accused individuals had unlawfully gained from the proceeds of crime through their involvement in criminal activities associated with scheduled offences.

Case Title: Ram Kishor Arora v Directorate Of Enforcement & Anr