Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Bail Granted To Vuenow Group Director In ₹3,717 Crore Money Laundering Case
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to interfere with the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order granting regular bail to Dimple Kharour, a director of Vuenow Group companies, in a money laundering case linked to an alleged ₹3,717 crore investment fraud.
The ED alleged that Vuenow Marketing Services Limited and associated companies sold cloud storage assets under a sale and leaseback scheme, using funds from new investors to pay assured returns to earlier investors.
A division bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale declined to interfere with the High Court's order granting bail to Kharour.
"We find no reason to interfere.", the Court said.
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik opposed the grant of bail, arguing that the High Court had failed to consider three important aspects of the case. He submitted that Kharour was a flight risk and referred to her alleged arrest in Nepal.
He further argued that proceeds of crime had been transferred to accounts operated or controlled by her and that these aspects had not been adequately considered while granting bail.
The ASG submitted that “She is a flight risk.”
The Court however interjected and said it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had granted regular bail to Dimple Kharour, wife of Sukhwinder Singh Kharour, a director of Vuenow Group companies, in a money laundering case linked to an alleged ₹3,717 crore investment fraud.
According to the ED, Dimple Kharour, a shareholder in the group company and entities linked to her received approximately ₹40.85 crore from Vuenow Marketing Services Limited and Vuenow Infotech Private Limited.
The High Court held that her further incarceration was not required, considering that she had spent over a year in custody and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court also noted that the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act would not apply to her as a woman, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Shashi Bala.