Money Laundering Case: Delhi High Court Permits The Quint’s Raghav Bahl And Ritu Kapur To Travel Abroad For Business Meetings

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday allowed The Quint's founder Raghav Bahl and co-founder and his spouse Ritu Kapur to travel abroad to London and New York next month for attending business meetings between September 02 - September 16.

Justice Amit Bansal also suspended the Look Out Circular issued against them by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a money laundering case, on the said dates.

The court directed Bahl and Kapur to furnish the undertaking that they shall return to India on or before September 17 and that they shall also file their travel itinerary.

Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari appearing for Bahl and Kapur submitted that both the applicants had duly returned back to India after they were granted permission to travel abroad on an earlier ocassion.

On the other hand, Zoheb Hossain appearing for Enforcement Directorate opposed the applications on the ground that there are serious allegations against Bahl and Kapur and thus, they should not be allowed to travel abroad. Hossain also submitted that since both the applicants have assets abroad, there is a likelihood that they will not come back.

Noting that both Kapur and Bahl have been permitted to travel abroad on previous occasions and that they have duly returned to the country, Justice Bansal said:

“Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to allow the applications. The LOC is suspended on the said dates.”

Earlier this year, a coordinate bench had refused to quash the money laundering case against Bahl. The court also refused to quash the look out circular against him.

While the court had dismissed Bahl’s plea challenging registration of ECIR and proceedings initiated by ED, Kapur’s plea in connection with the case remains pending.

The Income Tax department had initiated proceedings against Bahl under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act for alleged irregularities in IT returns filed for the assessment year 2018-2019. The complaint was filed under section 51 of the Act.

In his plea against the money laundering case, Bahl had claimed that since he had done “no wrong”, the continuation of PMLA proceedings “without having any subsisting basis in fact or law” has a “deleterious effect” on his life, business, and reputation.

Case Title: Raghav Bahl v. ED and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 723