The Delhi High court has granted bail to a Chartered Accountant (CA) accused of betraying professional commitments by vitiating the legal process of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
The bench of Justice Amit Sharma has observed that continued incarceration of the applicant with no possibility of trial being completed in near future, restrictions provided under Section 45 of the PMLA would not come in the way of ensuring the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The ECIR arises out of FIR/RC which was registered with CBI on a complaint filed by the then Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Hindu College Branch, Sonipat, Haryana, against M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd. and its directors.
As per the FIR, accounts of 5 banks, namely, PNB, ICICI Bank, IDBI Bank and State Bank of India were declared NPAs (Non- Performing Assets). It was alleged that the accused company had availed various credit facilities from ‘Consortium of 9 lender Banks’ and had diverted/siphoned off the said loan amount, by, failing to repay the loan amounts to the banks. It was also alleged that the accused company had also violated terms and conditions of the loan agreements in respect of hypothecated goods as the said goods were disposed of without depositing sale proceeds in their Cash Credit Accounts.
The case of CBI is that M/s Sunstar Overseas Ltd., accused company, through its directors/promoters/employees and others, had committed fraud by siphoning and diverting funds, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, fraud etc., by causing wrongful loss of approximately, Rs.951.88 Crores to the consortium of 9 lender banks.
During the course of investigation, the applicant along with Ajay Yadav and Paramjeet Sharma was arrested in the ECIR registered with the respondent/ED on 01.07.2024.
The main allegation with respect to the applicant is that he was a Chartered Accountant of the accused company and its related entities and was the main person behind the entire conspiracy. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was guiding main beneficiary Rohit Aggarwal in diverting the funds to various companies in order to finally acquire the accused company through the process of NCLT. It is submitted that the present applicant, who was supposed to be a chartered accountant has betrayed his professional commitments by indulging in practice which vitiated the legal process of NCLT.
The applicant filed the bail application on the grounds that the applicant is a Chartered Accountant and running his own partnership firm and is an external statutory auditor of the accused company which is owned and promoted by Aggarwal family and its directors.
The applicant contended that being an external auditor the applicant never had control over the financial records of the aforesaid companies and he was only providing professional services in respect of nothing incriminatory has surfaced during investigation undertaken in present ECIR as well as predicate offence.
The court noted that the trial in the predicate/scheduled offence has not been started and is at the preliminary stage. The prosecution therein has cited 98 witnesses and the trial is not likely to be completed in a reasonable time. There are nearly 8000 documents in the predicate/scheduled offence registered with CBI and around 6000 documents in the present complaint case filed by the respondent/ED. Even as per the reply of the respondent/ED, investigation is still continuing with respect to identification and location of the remaining ‘proceeds of crime’ and determining the role of other persons/entities involved
The court granted the bail to CA upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 alongwith two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court, further subject to the various conditions.
Firstly, in case of any change of address, the applicant is directed to inform the same to the learned Trial Court/Investigating Officer.
Secondly, the applicant shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Trial Court.
Thirdly, the applicant is directed to give all his mobile numbers to the Investigating Officer and keep them operational at all times.
Fourthly, the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or try to influence the witness in any manner.
Lastly, in case it is established that the applicant tried to tamper with the evidence, the prosecution will be at liberty to apply for cancellation of his bail.
Case Details
Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Gulati Versus ED
Case No.: Bail Appln. 4821/2024
Date: 07/05/2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Counsel For Respondent: Manish Jain
Read More: How to Earn Over ₹80,000 Per Month Tax-Free Through PPF?
