Case Law Details
Dalip Jindal Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Dalip Jindal vs Directorate of Enforcement, dealt with an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The applicant, Dalip Jindal, sought bail in connection with a case filed by the Directorate of Enforcement against several companies collectively referred to as the Bankey Behari Group of Companies, for offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
The prosecution’s case was based on the allegation that these companies, involved in the business of manufacturing and trading of pulses and wheat, had defrauded banks of approximately Rs. 527.32 crore. This was purportedly achieved through fraudulent transactions, including bogus sales, and siphoning off funds availed as working capital from various banks. The Directorate of Enforcement, upon investigation, found that Dalip Jindal, through his companies, was involved in these bogus transactions, with no actual movement of goods taking place, thereby aiding in the process of money laundering.
The applicant’s bail application had been dismissed by the trial court, prompting an appeal to the High Court. Jindal’s defense argued that his arrest and the allegations were unjust, highlighting that the material against him had already been in the possession of the Directorate of Enforcement when a separate complaint, in which he was not arrested, was filed. Additionally, Jindal’s counsel argued that he had no direct role in the alleged offenses, as he was not a director of the Bankey Behari Group of Companies. They contended that the transactions in question were settled through journal entries, without any intent to launder money.
However, the Delhi High Court, after reviewing the submissions and the material on record, concluded that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail were not satisfied. The Court found prima facie evidence that Jindal, through his companies, engaged in sham transactions involving paper sales and purchases with the Bankey Behari Group, leading to the diversion of funds to his accounts. This, in the Court’s view, amounted to involvement in the acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime, constituting an offense of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
