By Bricksnwall | 2024-06-07
The Delhi court ruled on Thursday that the promoter of Supertech satisfies both the triple test under the CrPC and the twin requirements for bail under the PMLA.
Ram Kishor Arora, the promoter of Supertech, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in June 2023 in relation to a money laundering case. A Delhi court granted Arora bail on Thursday, stating that Arora could show reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
Arora was granted relief on
Thursday after the Delhi court determined that he satisfied both the triple
test under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the twin requirements for
release under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Additional Sessions Judge
Devender Kumar Jangala declared, "Taking into account all the facts and
circumstances of the case, the applicant/accused Ram Kishor Arora is admitted
to bail on furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-with two sureties
in the like amount."
On August 26, 2023, the ED
filed a charge sheet against Arora and nine other individuals, claiming that
Supertech had improperly directed the proceeds of crime, totaling ₹638.93
crore, which it had obtained from bank loans and homebuyers, to its group
companies for the purchase of real estate and businesses with less valuable
land, resulting in illicit gains.
The federal agency's case
against Arora was founded on many first information reports (FIRs) alleging
that he defrauded homebuyers, which were submitted by the Delhi, Haryana, and
Uttar Pradesh police forces' economic offences wings (EOWs).
As it granted him bail, the
court pointed out that settlements had resulted in the quashing of three FIRs
against Arora and the absence of coercive orders in eight cases. There are very
few unanswered FIRs, and Arora stated that he is in the midst of reaching
agreements with the remaining buyers.
The judge's order stated,
"The fact that three FIRs were quashed due to settlement, that no coercive
order or protection was granted to the applicant/accused in eight cases due to
settlement with the home buyers, and that there was talk of settlement in the
remaining FIRs, is definitely a relevant factor to be considered at the time of
considering bail to the applicant/accused."
It was also noted that when
the charge sheet was presented, the federal agency raised the sum to ₹697 crore
from the ₹228 crore that the ED had originally alleged to be proceeds of crime.
In the financial years
2012–15, Arora's company had reserves and surplus of more than ₹600 crore,
which Arora's legal team brought forth as evidence that the ED had diverted
funds from homebuyers.
The ED did not refute this
claim, the judge observed.
Arora also offered
justifications for the money transfers to affiliate firms, which the federal
agency claimed were done for personal benefit. "A certificate from a
chartered accountant and bank statements verify the applicant's or accused's
explanations. The court noted the lack of criminal intent by stating,
"Therefore, the transfer of funds by the applicant/accused company, from
net profit, intra-company loans, and corporate loans, appears plausible."
The court also rejected the
assertion made by ED that Arora's company's bank and financial institution
loans were misappropriated and turned into non-performing assets. It pointed
out that the banks had not filed any FIRs, and that the ED's claims were
outside of its purview in the absence of a listed offence.
In summary, the court determined that Arora met the PMLA's dual requirements. It further stated that Arora complied with the CrPC's triple test for bail because he has strong social links, did not abuse his interim bail, and the case evidence is documentary, lowering the possibility of witness influence or tampering.
Source: HindustanTimes