Delhi HC denies default bail to Supertech chairman R K Arora in money laundering case

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea by R K Arora, the chairman and promoter of real estate major Supertech Group, seeking default bail in a money laundering case.

The high court rejected Arora's contention that on the date of filing of the prosecution complaint (charge sheet) the investigation was incomplete as the chargesheet was not accompanied by FSL report and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had issued summons to another person in the case after filing the prosecution complaint.

“The respondent (ED) has already submitted the requisite documents for obtaining expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Preparation of the FSL report is not in the control of the investigating agency, though it can take steps for expediting the process.

“It is the categorical stand of the respondent that the investigation against the present petitioner is complete. Mere issuance of summons to another person or seeking leave of the court to file additional evidence, without there being any other sufficient material to challenge, the petitioner (Arora) cannot be held to be entitled to a default bail. Consequently, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed,” Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri said in an order passed on March 5 and made available on Thursday.

As per Section 167(2) of the CrPC, when an accused is arrested and detained in custody, the investigation must be completed within a specified time frame, failing which the accused shall be released on default bail.

Arora had challenged a trial court’s October 14, 2023 order by which he was denied default bail in the case.

Arora contended before the high court that on the date of filing of the prosecution complaint, the investigation was incomplete as the complaint was not accompanied by FSL report and that the ED, after filing the complaint, had issued summons to Anil Kumar Jain, a director of Supertech, on September 14, 2023 which implied that investigation was still pending, including against Arora.

The high court said the right to default bail has been recognised as a statutory right which accrues to an accused only if the chargesheet or prosecution complaint (ED's equivalent of chargesheet) has not been filed within the stipulated period.

“The courts have also in no uncertain terms held that filing of an incomplete charge sheet/ complaint would not come in the way of this indefeasible right of the accused.

“In the present case indisputably, the respondent had filed its complaint within the period of 60 days. The application for default bail came to be filed approximately 30 days after filing of the complaint,” it said.

The ED, in its prosecution complaint filed before the trial court, had claimed that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Arora for the offence of laundering money.

Arora was arrested on June 27, 2023 under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The money laundering case against the Supertech group, its directors and promoters, stems from a clutch of FIRs registered by police in Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.

The ED has been probing 26 FIRs registered by the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh police against Supertech Ltd and its group companies for alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust and forgery. They have been accused of defrauding at least 670 home buyers of Rs 164 crore.

According to the charge sheet, the company and its directors hatched a "criminal conspiracy" to cheat people by collecting funds from prospective home buyers in advance against flats booked in their real estate projects.

The company did not adhere to the agreed obligation of providing possession of the flats in time and "defrauded" the general public, the agency said.

The funds were "misappropriated and diverted" for buying land in the name of other group companies which were pledged as collateral to borrow funds from banks and financial institutions, it alleged.

The ED alleged that the accused persons have acquired properties and made illegal/ wrongful gain arising out of the proceeds of crime by involving, indulging and commissioning criminal activities related to scheduled offences.