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

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had miserably failed to satisfy the Court that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged offences. The Court found sufficient material collected by the Directorate of Enforcement to show that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences. The allegations were deemed extremely grave and serious, striking at the very foundation of the country's economic and financial system, involving fraudulent transactions of hundreds of crores through complex layering of illicit funds. The petitioner's activities were found to be indispensable to the layering and integration stages of the money laundering process. The Court noted that delays in trials, often arising from procedural applications, do not provide grounds for bail in such grave matters, especially given the sophisticated modus operandi and the strict statutory framework of the PMLA. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional grounds to exercise discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail, as doing so would send a wrong signal and embolden economic offenders. The magnitude and organized nature of the fraud, and the systematic siphoning of funds, were considered to strike at the core of the nation's economic and financial fabric. The Court explicitly stated that the offence is not merely a fiscal offence but a crime against the economic health of the nation. Therefore, the bail application was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia, sought regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 05 of 2025, under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) had filed three complaint cases against individuals for offences under the GST Act and IPC, which were scheduled offences under the PMLA. The investigation revealed a syndicate involved in creating and operating fake companies to pass ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) by issuing fake GST bills. The petitioner is alleged to be an accomplice of the main mastermind, Shiva Kumar Deora, and involved in a similar modus operandi. An FIR was registered against the petitioner in Kolkata for availing fake ITC amounting to approximately ₹5,05,91,296/-. The petitioner is a director of Greentech Steel Private Limited, which allegedly claimed ineligible ITC on bogus invoices. Scrutiny of bank accounts revealed significant credits and debits from entities linked to the petitioner and his alleged associates, indicating a nexus in illegally claiming fake ITCs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has made out a case for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been falsely implicated and that there are reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty of the alleged offences. He likely contended that the material against him is insufficient to deny bail. (Specific arguments not detailed in the provided text). Opposite Party's (Directorate of Enforcement) Arguments: The Directorate of Enforcement argued that the allegations against the petitioner are of a grave and serious nature, striking at the foundation of the country's economic and financial system. They presented evidence of fraudulent transactions running into hundreds of crores of rupees, involving layering of illicit funds through multiple shell companies and bank accounts under the petitioner's de facto control. They contended that the petitioner's activities were indispensable to the money laundering process and that there was sufficient material to show he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences, thus disentitling him to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.