Delhi High Court Says ED's Approach Of Not Arresting Main Accused 'Arbitrary', Grants Bail To Others
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to three men in a money laundering case, while saying that the approach of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in not arresting the main accused with graver role was “manifestly arbitrary.”“Having not arrested an accused who appears to have a graver role than the applicants and not even arraigned a person named to have facilitated in arranging the...
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to three men in a money laundering case, while saying that the approach of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in not arresting the main accused with graver role was “manifestly arbitrary.”
“Having not arrested an accused who appears to have a graver role than the applicants and not even arraigned a person named to have facilitated in arranging the mule accounts, the approach adopted by the respondent department prima facie appears to be manifestly arbitrary and the benefit of parity cannot be denied to the applicants,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
The judge granted bail to accused Vipin Yadav, Ajay and Rakesh Karwa in a money laundering case alleging that they, along with others, duped and cheated Indian citizens for Rs. 641 crores in the name of fake investment schemes false jobs and other similar activities.
CBI probe revealed that out of 937 bank accounts, 12 bank accounts were managed, operated and controlled by a group of individuals including the applicants, against whom 16 cyber fraud related complaints were received on National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.
It was also revealed that accused Ajay and Vipin Yadav and their associates were operating from New Delhi and collectively created web of entities which were managed, operated and controlled by them for carrying out various transactions regarding uploading the money on Pyypl Wallet.
It was noticed that the said individuals received funds from main accused Rohit Aggarwal and others, including the third applicant Rakesh Karwa.
It was the applicants' case that they were falsely implicated in the case and did not play any role in the generation of the proceeds of crime.
It was submitted that ED was solely relying on the statement of the co-accused Rohit Aggarwal to assert that the applicants knew that the money allegedly received by them from was tainted money.
It was also contended that ED cannot be allowed to cherry-pick which accused persons to arrest and investigate and that Aggarwal was neither arrested till date, nor any of the accused persons in the scheduled offence alleged to be the direct beneficiaries of the proceeds of crime derived out of the scheduled offences.
On the other hand, ED submitted that accused Aggarwal had extended full cooperation in the investigation by voluntarily disclosing his bank accounts, cryptocurrency wallets, mule entities, modus operandi of laundering, KYCs and other transaction proofs.
It was contended that accused Ajay deliberately evaded queries withheld documents and failed to explain the source of funds uploaded on Pyypl, accused Vipin, despite admitting crypto dealings, concealed agreements and records and that accused Rakesh Karwa showed extreme defiance by fleeing during search, destroying digital evidence and ignoring summons.
Granting bail to the applicants, the Court said that prima facie, applicants Ajay and Vipin were at the penultimate rung of the transaction while the accused Rohit (main accused) was alleged to be privy to the collection of proceeds of crime by the organised crime syndicate.
Observing that the role of the applicants cannot be said to be graver than that of Aggarwal, the Court said:
“Insofar as the applicant Rakesh is concerned, it is pertinent to note that as per the case of the respondent department that is borne out from the complaints, the funds received by the applicant Rakesh were transferred to various individuals/ entities, including the accused Rohit, and the crypto currency received from the said individuals used to be further transferred by the applicant Rakesh into private wallets.”
“At best, the role of the applicant Rakesh can be stated to be similar to that of the accused Rohit. Despite the same, while the applicants have been arrested, the prosecution complaint (wherein the co-accused Rohit was arraigned as an accused) was filed on 25.01.2025 without arresting the said accused.”
Justice Mahajan further said that prima facie, the role attributed to the applicants could not be stated to be graver than that of the accused Rohit Aggarwal as it was ED's case that majority of the funds came from him.
“It is also relevant to note that the investigation in the predicate offence has not yet concluded and the present matter is still at the stage of cognizance, even though the applicants Ajay and Vipin were arrested way back on 29.11.2024 and the applicant Rakesh was arrested on 29.01.2025. It is argued that there are 76 witnesses in the first prosecution complaint and 35 witnesses in the supplementary prosecution complaint, whereby, it is highly unlikely that the trial will conclude in an expeditious manner,” the Court said.
Allowing the pleas, the judge said that it is not just the period spent in incarceration but also the possibility of delayed trial that is to be seen by the Court.
Noting that the trial was yet to commence in the predicate or scheduled offence and the matters were at a preliminary stage with the investigation still being in process, the speedy trial in the matter did not seem to be a possibility.
“The applicants are stated to have no previous criminal involvements, and they are unlikely to commit any offence whilst on bail,” the Court said.
Title: VIPIN YADAV v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1203