TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Denied for Ex-CEO in Rs. 28 Crore Case; Court Cites Serious Offences and Ongoing Money Laundering Investigation.</h1> <h3>Kailash Ramkishan Gupta Versus State of Gujarat</h3> The HC rejected the application for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the CrPC in connection with FIR C.R.- I No. 027 of 2012. The applicant, a ... - Issues involved: Application for regular bail u/s 439 of CrPC after chargesheet in connection with FIR C.R.- I No. 027 of 2012 for offences u/s 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with Section 120(B) of IPC.Summary:The application for regular bail was filed u/s 439 of the CrPC after the chargesheet was submitted in connection with FIR C.R.- I No. 027 of 2012. The offences alleged included sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A) read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, who was the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the National Multi Commodity Exchange of India, Ahmedabad, along with his wife and son, was accused in the case along with six others. The total number of accused was nine, with five, including the wife and son, shown as absconding accused in the charge-sheet.The Court considered various aspects, including the seriousness of the offences, the amount involved, and the likelihood of the applicant being available for trial. The applicant's son, who was also accused and shown as an absconding accused, was reported to have settled in the United States of America. The Court noted that the offence was grave in nature, involving public money of more than Rs. 28 crores, and that the Directorate of Enforcement had also registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for investigation into the alleged fraud.After considering all factors, the Court concluded that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant bail at that stage. The application for bail was rejected, and the rule was discharged. The applicant was granted liberty to move the Court again after three months, with any new application to be considered on its own merits at that time.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
