PMLA court denies bail to Cox & Kings executives in ₹3,642 cr loan default case

The special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court on Tuesday rejected the bail applications of chartered accountant Anil Khandelwal and Naresh Jain, internal auditor of the Cox & Kings Group, in connection with the money laundering case

Mumbai: The special PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) court on Tuesday rejected the bail applications of chartered accountant Anil Khandelwal and Naresh Jain, internal auditor of the Cox & Kings Group, in connection with the money laundering case linked to the group’s loan defaults amounting to ₹3,642 crore.

HT Image

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered the case in 2020, alleging that the Cox & Kings Group had defaulted on loans borrowed from Yes Bank, by the bank’s former MD and CEO, Rana Kapoor, bypassing norms. It was further alleged that CKG promoter Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar, with the assistance of Khandelwal and Jain, diverted the loan amount to other group companies.

The court rejected the bail applications, considering factors such as the delay in commencing the trial and assessing progress in the trial. “In spite of direction given by this court, the ED has not taken active step for the commitment of the cases relating to the predicate offences. No substantial progress has been made in the trial by the ED,” stated the applicant in his written submissions.

Special judge MG Deshpande noted that Khandelwal’s application did not qualify under Section 436A (maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the applicant had not undergone detention for the specified period.

The ED vehemently opposed the bail applications, emphasising the gravity of the applicants’ involvement in money laundering. “Prima-facie there is huge material to indicate that the applicant is guilty of an offence of money-laundering and that this is 3rd bail application when previous were rejected on merits,” contended the ED while opposing Khandelwal’s plea.

The court highlighted the peculiar procedure for the trial of PMLA cases and pointed out the ED’s legal obligation under Section 44(1)(c) of the PML Act. The court observed that the ED, until the given directions, had been a silent spectator and had not taken steps to initiate the trial of the undertrial prisoners.