On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision to grant bail to Raman Bhuraria, a key figure in the money laundering investigation linked to the Shakti Bhog Foods bank fraud. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, emphasized Bhuraria's lack of a criminal record and acknowledged the stringent conditions imposed by the High Court when approving bail.

During the proceedings, Justice Oka questioned the need for intervention, stating, "No prior criminal history, and the High Court has set forth numerous stringent bail conditions. Why should we intervene?" The panel granted bail while giving the Enforcement Directorate (ED) the authority to petition for bail cancellation if any specified conditions are violated.

The court did express reservations about one specific bail condition that required Bhuraria to regularly share his exact location through a Google pin from his mobile phone with the police. Despite these concerns, the court opted not to scrutinize this particular condition in the present case.

The appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's decision was based on the contention that Bhuraria, the internal auditor at Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL), played a pivotal role in the fraudulent activities. The ED alleged that Bhuraria facilitated SBFL's borrowing, layering, and diversion of loan funds through various affiliated companies and shell entities.

The ED further accused Bhuraria of engaging in paper sale-purchase transactions at SBFL, artificially inflating the company's financial records. These inflated financials, according to the ED, were used to secure loans from banks. The borrowed funds were then allegedly routed through the bank accounts of entities within the Shakti Bhog group, transforming them from liabilities to assets.

Bhuraria, arrested in August 2021, remained in custody until the Delhi High Court granted him bail in February of the following year. The High Court judge noted that despite the ED labeling Bhuraria as the 'mastermind,' the accusation was supported by only five documents, and the chargesheet had not been filed at that point.

The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court's conclusions were preliminary, focusing on the bail grant rather than delving into the merits of the case. Notably, the court had previously expressed disapproval of the bail condition requiring Bhuraria to continuously share his location with the police, likening it to surveillance. However, the court deferred a detailed examination of this matter for a more suitable case. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju represented the Enforcement Directorate in these proceedings.

Case: Directorate of Enforcement vs Raman Bhuraria.