Amit Agarwal Alias Vicky Bhalotia vs. Directorate Of Enforcement Through Its Assistant Director

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's second/successive bail application was devoid of merit. It found that the petitioner played a central and indispensable role in a large-scale, organized money laundering operation, with significant proceeds of crime remaining partly untraced. The Court determined that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were squarely attracted and remained unsatisfied. Furthermore, the Court noted a real and continuing risk of tampering with evidence, influencing vulnerable witnesses, and repetition of the offence if the petitioner were enlarged on bail. The Court found no fresh ground or supervening circumstance to warrant a departure from earlier orders rejecting bail. The Court also observed that the petitioner's period of incarceration was not disproportionate and that any delay in proceedings was partly attributable to the petitioner's own applications. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the earlier order rejecting bail, and thus, the bail application was dismissed. The observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the case at the trial stage.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia, sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2025, arising from an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had filed complaint cases against individuals involved in a syndicate that created and operated fake companies to pass ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) through fake GST bills. The petitioner is alleged to be an accomplice of the mastermind, Shiva Kumar Deora, and involved in availing fake ITC. An FIR was registered against the petitioner in Kolkata for fraudulent availment of ITC amounting to ₹5,05,91,296/-. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated an ECIR based on scheduled offences under the PMLA. A search of the petitioner's premises resulted in the seizure of cash and electronic devices, followed by his arrest. The petitioner's bank accounts showed significant transactions with entities allegedly involved in the fraudulent ITC scheme. The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a central role in a large-scale money laundering operation, with proceeds of crime remaining partly untraced.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2025, considering the allegations of money laundering and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002? The petitioner argued that he should be enlarged on bail, possibly on parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. He also contended that his period of incarceration was disproportionate and that the trial was delayed due to the prosecution's actions. The Directorate of Enforcement (Opposite Party) argued that the petitioner was a central figure in a large-scale money laundering operation involving significant proceeds of crime. They contended that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were attracted and not satisfied. The ED also raised apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, particularly vulnerable dummy directors. They highlighted that bail applications of co-accused Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Gupta were rejected, and their Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court had not yielded any relief. The ED asserted that the petitioner's role was indispensable and that there was a continuing risk of repetition of the offence.