Benoy Babu vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 22 February, 2023

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Benoy Babu vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 22 February, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Kumar Sharma

                          $~70
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    BAIL APPLN. 562/2023
                               BENOY BABU                                ..... Petitioner
                                              Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advocate and
                                                       Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate,
                                                       Mr. Madhav Khurana, Mr. Vignaraj
                                                       Pasayat, Mr. Samarth Luthra and
                                                       Mr. Arvind Kheta, Advocates.
                                              versus
                               DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT                ..... Respondent
                                              Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel for
                                                       ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
                                               ORDER

% 22.02.2023 CRL.M.A. 4687/2023(exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. BAIL APPLN. 562/2023 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 269/2023 (for interim bail)

1. Present bail application has been filed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Ct. Case No.31/2022 titled "Directorate of Enforcement Vis Sameer Mahandru & Ors."

2. Sh. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a peculiar case where the petitioner is not an accused in the main predicate offence in which the chargesheet has already been filed by the CBI. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further invited the attention of this Court that only one day before the arrest of the present petitioner, the statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:27.02.2023 13:39:10

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the role assigned to the present petitioner is that he in conspiracy with his employer M/s. Pernod Ricard Company furnished a corporate guarantee of Rs.200 crore. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no substance in the case of the Enforcement Department.

4. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submits that in the present case there is no proceeds of crime and therefore the basic genesis for attribution of the offence, as defined under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, goes. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case where the accused should be admitted to bail.

5. Sh. Zoheb Hossain, learned special counsel for the respondent submits that though he will file a detailed status report, however, the argument advanced by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was not an accused in the main predicate offence, therefore, he could not have been arrested in the present case, may be noted only to be rejected. Learned special counsel has placed reliance on the judgment in Vijay Madan Lal Chaudhary vs. UOI : (2002) SCC Online SC 929, which particularly lays down that that even if the accused is not an accused in the main predicate offence, still he may be prosecuted for the offence of the money laundering.

6. Let the status report be filed.

7. List on 16th March, 2023.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J FEBRUARY 22, 2023/st Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PALLAVI VERMA Signing Date:27.02.2023 13:39:10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders