Delhi court refuses bail to woman accused in Rs 1200 crore money laundering case

Special CBI Judge Amitabh Rawat on Wednesday dismissed the bail pleas of Aparna Puri considering the gravity of the allegations against her and the fact that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation is ongoing.

"Considering the submissions of the ED and the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the role of the accused ascribed and the submissions of her counsel, it cannot be said that the accused has been able to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of the alleged offences," Special Judge Rawat said in the order passed on November 20.

"Hence, I am not inclined to allow the present application filed on behalf of applicant Aparna Puri for grant of bail. The bail application is accordingly dismissed," the judge said.

The court noted that the investigation is still pending and a prosecution complaint (Chargesheet) is yet to be filed.

The court observed, "Aparna Puri was not a dummy Director and played a key role in the key affairs of Amira Pure Food Private Limited (APFPL). During the investigation, she claimed to have not known about the transfer of funds to various shell entities from the accounts of APFPL."

The court noted that she also submitted that she was not looking after the financial affairs of the company. However, other related persons, submitted that she took over the finance operations of the company after Anita Daing left.

While dismissing the pleas the court noted that as per ED's case, the accused Aparna Puri was the Director of the said company and was also handling finance and authorized signatory in respect of financial transactions.

The court said that It is not denied by the Counsel for the accused that she was an authorized signatory or had signed cheques/authorized transactions whereby amounts were transferred from APFPL to various shell companies.

The only argument advanced by the Counsel for the accused was that she was not aware of the intentions of her cousin Karan A Chanana, Managing Director and main accused and had become Director and authorized signatory in good faith, the court noted.

"The argument that she kept on doing things and continuing in the accused company and following instructions of accused Karan A Chanana as she wanted to keep monthly salary/income as she was not in good financial health, is only a submission which cannot, at this stage, be taken for meeting requirements of Section 45 of PMLA," the court said.

She had sought bail on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs Directorate of Enforcement in the Delhi Excise Policy case. She sought interim bail on medical grounds.

It was submitted by the counsel for the accused that she was in poor financial health and her marriage was not working, The main accused Chanana, cousin of the applicant, offered her a job in his company as General Manager (Corporate) in 2013.

In 2014, she was promoted to Plant Head General Manager and her salary was raised to Rs 3 lakh per month. In 2015, she separated from her husband and in February 2015, she became a Director on the asking of Chanana without understanding the consequences of the same.

In November 2016, she stopped visiting the office and in February 2017, she refused to sign cheques. On March 1, 2018, she resigned from the company since no salary was paid for the last 6-8 months, the counsel added.

Special public prosecutor Manish Jain, Simon Benjamin and Advocate Snehal Sharda appeared for the ED.

The ED, while opposing the bail plea, said that there is no absolute principle that a lady accused has to be granted bail due to the proviso of Section 45 of PMLA.

The judgment of K Kavitha (Supra) states that there is no automatic extension of benefit of proviso to Section 45 PMLA and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

As per ED, the accused was working in APFPL since 2013 and was appointed as Director on February 5, 2016, by the main accused Chanana. She was one of the key managerial and important persons of the company; she was made authorized signatory of one of the Bank Accounts of APFPL and her role was to sign the cheques/documents processed through the Accounts department and authorize the payments to the entities.

It said that she admitted to signing all kinds of cheques of the company viz. payments to the entities. This fact was revealed and admitted by Aparna Puri herself during the course of a statement dated May 15, 2023, before the Directorate under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 and stands corroborated by statements of other related persons recorded under Section 50 of PMLA.

It is further alleged that the document of the company retrieved from the website of MCA revealed that Aparna Puri also attended board meetings of APFPL. Although, the board meetings did not happen in real mostly, but on paper, Aparna Puri has marked her attendance in all the Board meetings of APFPL which she was entitled to attend as evident from the excerpts of the MCA documents.

The court noted that It is aptly clear that she was involved/assisted in day to day affairs of the company. It is not possible that she was not aware of the Bank funds that were transferred to the various shell entities from the various Bank accounts of APFPL during her tenure. Then, she has not revealed/disclosed all the facts privy to her.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR on November 23, 2020, under sections 120B, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Act, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 on the basis of complaint dated 17.11.2020 filed by Canara Bank.

In the FIR, it has been alleged that the accused company through its Directors/Promoters/Employees and others have committed fraud by siphoning and diverting funds, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, fraud, etc. causing wrongful loss to the tune of approximately Rs 1201.85 crores to the consortium of banks leading by Canara Bank.

The account of the company is declared as fraud by all the member Banks to the tune of approximately Rs 1201 crores. The company not only defaulted in repayment of interest but also failed to submit its financial statements, and net worth particulars of guarantors, routed transactions outside consortium lenders, did not enable stock audits etc, it is alleged. (ANI)