Libertatem Magazine

Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Kavi Arora in a Money Laundering Case

Contents of this Page

In October 2019, the Economic Offence Wing (EOW) of Delhi Police arrested the petitioner, Kavi Arora with four others. Consequently, Mr Arora approached the High Court of Delhi for seeking regular bail under Section 439 read with Section 482 of CrPC.

Facts of the Case

Kavi Arora is the former CEO of Religare Finvest Ltd (RFL). He is liable for money laundering case related to alleged misappropriation of funds at RFL under Section 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC. The EOW registered an FIR against Singh brothers, Arora, and others in March 2019. They received a complaint about the same from RFL’s associate Manpreet Suri. He claimed that they took loans while managing the firm but they invested money in other companies. The offence relates to the illegal transfer of Rs. 2,000/- crores of public money.

Petitioner’s Arguments

Mr Puneet Bali, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that a co-accused Anil Saxena got regular bail by the Court. Also, reading of the charge sheet makes it crystal clear that Anil Saxena and the petitioner have similar roles as found by the investigating agency.

He further submits that the petitioner was charged on wholly misconceived facts. It falsely implicates him of causing wrongful losses to RFL by siphoning off its funds as ICD/CLB loans. All this is in conspiracy with the other charge-sheeted accused, to the benefit of RHC Holding Pvt. Ltd.

Mr Bali further relied on the Judgement given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Dipak Shubhash Chandra Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134, where the Apex Court held that detaining undertrials indefinitely is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Respondent’s Arguments

Mr Amit Chadha, the learned APP for state and Mr Mohit Mathur, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant Religare Finvest Limited (RFL). They submitted the following arguments before the Court:

  1. The petitioner was the CEO and Managing Director of complainant’s company for 6 years. Moreover, during his tenure, a large part of the siphoning took place.
  2. The petitioner misrepresented to the RBI in order to hide the siphoning.
  3. Anil Saxena only approved for 6 loans, out of which 3 got secured. Whereas, the petitioner herein approved loans up to 16. The 3 loans were previously granted for which 19 loans are in question. Hence, the two couldn’t appear equal.

Court’s Observations

The Court observed that:

  1. The petitioner being influential is capable of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
  2. The petitioner is chargeable with Section 409 IPC which is a grave offence punishable with life imprisonment.
  3. The investigation is at the crucial stage regarding fraud committed by the accused of the worth of Rs.2,000/- crores plus of public money.

Court’s Decision

The single-judge bench comprised of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait dismissed off the petition with no order as to costs. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author