PACL case: Delhi HC denies anticipatory bail to promoter's daughter

The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to Barinder Kaur, daughter of late PACL promoter Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, in a money laundering case. The court observed her non-cooperation with the ED investigation warranted the denial of relief.

The Delhi High Court on Monday denied anticipatory bail to the daughter of late PACL promoter Nirmal Singh Bhangoo in a money laundering case, observing that her conduct during the investigation did not warrant such relief.

It is alleged that Barinder Kaur, the daughter of late PACL promoter, was connected to certain entities that allegedly received proceeds of crime.

The Rs 48,000 Crore Ponzi Scheme

Barinder Kaur had approached the High Court seeking protection from arrest in proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) for the alleged Rs 48,000 crore Ponzi scheme in which numerous investors were duped.

The case originates from an alleged large-scale financial fraud involving PACL and PGFL, where more than Rs 48,000 crore is alleged to have been collected from investors through land-related schemes. According to the ED, these funds were allegedly diverted through various entities, including overseas companies, and used for acquiring assets.

Allegations of Receiving Proceeds of Crime

It is alleged that Barinder Kaur was connected to certain entities that allegedly received proceeds of crime. The ED further alleged that funds were siphoned off to Australian companies and used for the purchase of immovable properties abroad. It is also alleged that she received rental income from properties linked to PACL funds and was involved in transactions relating to such assets.

Petitioner's Defense

During the hearing, the petitioner argued that she was not named in the initial stages of the investigation, including the FIR, ECIR and early prosecution complaints. It was also submitted that some of the alleged transactions took place before she became a director in the concerned companies.

The petitioner further contended that she had earlier been granted bail in related proceedings, is not a flight risk, and had joined the investigation during the period of interim protection.

ED Opposes Bail Plea

Opposing the plea, the ED submitted that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation and allegedly gave evasive and false replies during questioning. It was also alleged that she attempted to influence witnesses and instructed an associate during search proceedings to ensure that no incriminating material was recovered.

The ED argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace assets and assist in the recovery of funds for investors.

Court's Observations and Ruling

Justice Girish Kathpalia, after considering the material on record, observed that the petitioner had allegedly not cooperated fully and had given answers during interrogation that were found to be incorrect. It also noted that affidavits filed before the Court appeared to contradict statements made to investigators.

The Court observed that such conduct, prima facie, indicated an attempt to obstruct the investigation.

The Court further reiterated that economic offences such as money laundering are serious in nature and require a stricter approach while considering bail. It noted that anticipatory bail is an exceptional relief and cannot be granted as a matter of routine, particularly where custodial interrogation is considered necessary. (ANI)

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)