The Delhi High Court refused to dismiss a money laundering case against The Quint’s founder Raghav Bahl on Monday. (The Quint: A bilingual news and opinion website started in 2015 by Raghav Bahl & Ritu Kapur after their exit from Network18).
Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the petition challenging the registration of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and the initiation of proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court also refused to vacate the lookout circular (LOC) issued against him.
Concerning the LOC, Justice Singh stated that quashing it would be premature. The court did, however, grant Bahl the right to file an application with supporting documents whenever he wants to travel abroad, which it said would be considered in accordance with the law.
“The quashing of LOC at this stage will be premature, however the petitioner has travelled in the past and needs to travel for work. “The petitioner’s right to travel abroad in a genuine case and for business cannot be restricted,” the court ruled.
Bahl’s lawyer, Abhimanyu Bhandari, claimed that the money was sent through his bank account to purchase a property in London and that there was no tax evasion involved. As a result, he contended, there can be no proceeds of crime.
It was argued that, at best, Bahl could be charged with underreporting money transactions abroad, but this does not generate proceeds of crime, which is required for PMLA proceedings.
On the other hand, Zoheb Hossain, who represented the Enforcement Directorate (ED), stated that the allegation in the complaint is about an attempt to evade tax.
Hossain also claimed that similar issues were raised before the Allahabad High Court, and that Bahl’s plea was dismissed after the court determined that there is a prima facie case for initiating proceedings against him under the Black Money Act. The court was also informed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order.
It was also argued that Bahl was seeking a stay of proceedings at the summons stage, and that at that point, he cannot even maintain the plea because, according to Supreme Court precedent, he is not a person aggrieved.
“In the present case, I believe that the petition is premature. The petitioner is seeking the ECIR to be quashed, and the Supreme Court has stated that “merely recording an ECIR does not make a person an accused,” Justice Singh said.
