What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
District Judge Anju Bajaj Chanana of Rouse Avenue Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Pradeep Goyal.
NEW DELHI: District Judge Anju Bajaj Chanana of Rouse Avenue Court recently granted anticipatory bail to Pradeep Goyal, a top executive of Shree Raj Mahal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (SRMJPL), in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case. The bail was granted after satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The case involves allegations of bank fraud related to the sale and purchase of jewellery.
This decision marks a rare instance where Section 45 of the PMLA was satisfied in an anticipatory bail plea under Section 438 of the CrPC. Speaking to The New Indian, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, who represented Goyal, they said before court not with Media that the predicate offence of cheating would not hold as the order declaring the company’s account fraudulent had been set aside for violating the principles of natural justice.
“The approval under Section 17A was also denied by the bank against the officials. The existence of the predicate offence itself was questionable. On many such grounds, the District Judge granted anticipatory bail, considering the accused’s apprehension of arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED),” Pahwa stated.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court rejects plea for Sanatana Dharma protection board
Advocate Naveen Sharma also appeared in the matter.
Case Background
Pradeep Goyal was summoned by the ED on October 10 to join the investigation. His brother, Ashok Goyal, who had previously appeared before ED officials, was arrested during the probe. Following this, Pradeep Goyal, through his counsel, filed an anticipatory bail application.
In 2021, the Bank of India lodged an FIR with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding credit facilities extended to SRMJPL. According to the complaint, the company, initially formed as a partnership firm in 2008 and later converted into a private limited company in 2009, received a credit sanction of ₹45 crore in 2010, which was subsequently enhanced to ₹125 crore by 2014 under a consortium arrangement.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court seeks Ashish Mishra’s response on witness threat allegations in Lakhimpur Kheri case
The account was red-flagged in 2015 following a special investigative audit and later declared fraudulent. It was also classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), prompting recovery proceedings under the law. In 2021, the CBI filed an FIR and later a chargesheet, but the court has yet to take cognizance of the case.
The ED also initiated a PMLA case in 2021 based on the CBI’s FIR. However, despite three years of investigation, no prosecution complaint or closure report has been filed, leaving the matter inconclusive.
Grounds for Bail
Pahwa argued that his client suffers from life-threatening ailments, including Chronic Liver Disease (CLD), Grade-II Fibrosis, anxiety disorder, depressive tendencies, and frequent panic attacks. The applicant’s medical condition requires special care and attention.
He further contended that the ED’s case relies solely on documentary evidence and that no fraud has been established. Without evidence of fraud, there are no proceeds of crime to substantiate a PMLA violation. Additionally, Goyal was never arrested by the CBI for the predicate offence.
The court granted anticipatory bail, citing the lack of evidence to support the continuation of the PMLA investigation.
