Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna dismissed a petition challenging the non-bailable warrants issued against an accused in the AgustaWestland money-laundering investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court held that video conferencing provisions cannot serve as a means for an accused to avoid physical and mandatory appearance during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, noting that the facility is intended to assist in recording evidence, not to protect an absconding individual from lawful inquiry. Observing that the accused had repeatedly failed to appear despite multiple summonses, the Court found that his conduct amounted to wilful evasion and affirmed the necessity of his custodial presence for effective examination of documents and evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

The case concerned a petition filed by an individual seeking cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him in connection with an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate arising from allegations of money laundering linked to the AgustaWestland helicopter deal. The petitioner contended that he was not connected with the alleged offence, had cooperated with the authorities, and had provided all required documents. He asserted that his non-appearance in person was due to medical conditions and business obligations abroad, and that he had expressed willingness to participate in the investigation through video conferencing. The petitioner maintained that his request for examination through the virtual mode was bona fide, particularly in view of his ill health and the ongoing pandemic, and that the warrants were issued without necessity or justification.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Police Can Directly Register FIR For Threatening Witness Under Section 195A IPC Without Court Complaint

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the petition, submitting that repeated summonses had been issued to the petitioner, who persistently failed to appear. It was alleged that the petitioner and entities associated with him had received and layered proceeds of crime through foreign companies. The Directorate argued that his custodial interrogation was essential for confronting him with voluminous documentary and digital evidence collected during searches and through international assistance, which could not be effectively done through virtual means. The agency further claimed that the petitioner’s continued stay abroad and alleged application for foreign citizenship reflected deliberate evasion of lawful process.

Both sides referred to several judicial precedents. The petitioner relied on decisions permitting recording of evidence through video conferencing, while the Enforcement Directorate cited authorities affirming the court’s power to issue non-bailable warrants during investigation to secure the presence of an accused. The proceedings involved interpretation of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the legal provisions governing the issuance and cancellation of warrants, as well as the scope and applicability of video conferencing facilities in investigative proceedings.

The Court recorded that “since 2019, his physical presence has been sought for the investigations to confront him with voluminous documents… which he has been evading by claiming business exigencies and ill health.” It noted that the central question was whether the Trial Court had correctly concluded “that the Petitioner was wilfully evading the process of law.”

It stated that “the issue of an NBW is a grave matter that affects the personal liberty of an individual,” but the purpose of such warrants is “to compel the attendance of an accused, who has displayed a persistent reluctance or intent to evade the judicial process.” It recorded that an NBW cannot be issued mechanically and must be supported by objective satisfaction drawn from facts.

The Court stated that “a Magistrate has the authority under Section 73 Cr.P.C. to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant against an accused who is absconding and is required for the purpose of investigation.” It found that the Petitioner’s conduct “clearly demonstrates a deliberate and calculated attempt to evade the process of law.”

It recorded that the Petitioner produced a medical certificate advising rest on 24.11.2019 yet travelled abroad on 26.11.2019, which “demonstrates a clear intention to avoid the investigation.” The Court further noted that he failed to appear despite “the service of nine separate summonses.” It also took note of the allegation that he and his family had applied for Dominican citizenship, indicating an attempt “to place himself beyond the reach of Indian law.”

Also Read: ‘Breach Of Promise To Marry’ Not Same As ‘False Promise’ Amounting To Rape: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail

On video-conferencing, the Court stated that VC rules “do not give an inherent right to the Petitioner to deny appearing in person even though his presence is mandatorily required.” It recorded that “he cannot take shelter behind VC Rules to assert that he can claim to join investigations through VC.” It further observed that “the Petitioner cannot be confronted with these documents through VC; the Respondent was thus, well justified in seeking his physical presence.” It stated that the Hyderabad order relied upon by the Petitioner was irrelevant as the ED lacked locus in that case. The allegation of mala fides was rejected, the Court stating that such allegations require “proof of a higher order of credibility,” which was absent. It rejected the plea of discrimination, recording that coercive process depends on “individual conduct… and the necessity of custodial confrontation.”

The Court held: “In the totality of circumstances, it is hereby held that there is no ground for cancellation of the open NBW issued by the ACMM. There is no merit in the present Petition which is hereby dismissed.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Mr. Tanvir Ahmed Mir, Senior Advocate; Mr. Yudhister Singh, Mr. Prabhav Ralli, Mr. Saud Khan, Mr. Shiv Kapoor, Mr. Pulkit Shree, Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG; Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel; Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advocates.

Case Title: Shravan Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9687
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 449/2021
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna