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

Must Read

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Follow us

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.


Libertatem.in 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

US Court Orders Iran To Pay $1.4 BN in Damages To Missing Former FBI Agent’s Family

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Iran to pay in total $1.45 bn to the Levinson family in punitive...

Onus on Petitioner To Show Unassailable Facts: Delhi High Court

In the case of Rhythm Jain v National Testing Agency, the Delhi High Court mentioned that in such petitions the onus to prove the facts...

Under-Trial/Convicted Persons Do Not Have Absolute Right To Parole in Light of Coronavirus : Bombay High Court

An important judgment was given by the Division Bench of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court concerning the constitutionality of Rule 19 of...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks State To File Reply To Examine Whether Privacy Rights of an Individual Can Be Violated by Issuing an Executive...

A Writ Petition was instituted by an individual for violation of his fundamental rights by the State before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The...

Bombay High Court Allows Export of Pending Consignment of Onions in Respect of Which Shipping Bills Have Been Generated Before Notification of the Ban

A writ petition challenging the notification dated 14th September 2020 to ban the export of onions was filed by the Exporters Association before the...

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -