The Delhi High Court rejected the statutory bail plea lodged by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora in a money laundering case registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on Tuesday rejected Ram Kishor Arora’s bail plea.
The court ordered that they find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. It added that pending application is disposed of as infructuous.
Supertech and its group companies have been accused of cheating over 800 homebuyers of Rs 228 crores. Nearly, 26 first information reports (FIRs) were registered under several sections of the Indian Penal Code in Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh on homebuyers complaints.
The Enforcement Directorate arrested Ram Kishor Arora in June 2023. The complaint was registered against him on August 24, 2023 and the court took cognisance of the same on September 26, 2023. It was in Ram Kishor Arora’s case that on the date of the filing of the complaint, the investigation was incomplete and the complaint was not accompanied by the FSL report.
The Delhi High Court was also informed that even after filing of the complaint, the investigation agency issued summons to one Anil Kumar Jain, the director of Supertech, which implies that the probe is still pending including against Arora.
Considering the submission, Justice Ohri noted that the Enforcement Directorate had said that mere issuance of summons to other directors would not imply that the investigation against Arora is incomplete and the right to investigate further is well recognised by the law.
The court observed that in the present case, the respondent has already submitted the requisite documents for obtaining expert opinion from FSL. It also noted that preparation of the FSL report is not in the control of the investigating agency, though it can take steps for expediting the process.
The court further remarked that it is the categorical stand of the respondent that investigation against the present petitioner is complete. The court concluded that 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 cannot be held to be entitled to a default bail.
Subsequently, it rejected the statutory bail plea.