Amarendra Dhari Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered an application by Amarendra Dhari Singh seeking regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Enforcement Directorate had registered ECIR No. DLZO-I/43/2021 dated 20 May 2021 following a CBI FIR concerning alleged irregularities in the import of fertilisers and raw materials by entities associated with the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) and Indian Potash Limited (IPL). According to the investigating agencies, fertilisers were imported at inflated prices, generating illegal commissions which were routed through foreign companies, intermediaries, purported consultancy agreements and other transactions. The prosecution alleged that approximately ₹685 crore had been received through bank accounts associated with Rajeev Saxena and other accused persons, including the applicant. It further alleged that inflated import prices adversely affected the public exchequer because fertiliser subsidies were linked to the cost of imported products. The applicant denied the allegations and challenged the circumstances of his arrest on 2 June 2021.
The applicant submitted that the original complaint dated 1 April 2013 had resulted in an FIR only in May 2021 and that he had cooperated with investigations under FEMA and income-tax laws over several years. He disputed compliance with the safeguards governing arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA and the Code of Criminal Procedure, relying upon Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh, D.K. Basu Vs State of West Bengal and Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar. He contended that the evidence was largely documentary or digital and already in the custody of investigating agencies. He also challenged the reliability of the allegations attributed to Rajiv Saxena and denied any attempt to influence witnesses or assist another individual in leaving India. The applicant emphasised that he had travelled abroad approximately 90 times during previous investigations and had consistently returned, demonstrating that he was not a flight risk.
