The Delhi High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail applications of Charu Khera and her son Aadhar Khera, implicated in a massive ₹400 crore financial fraud, emphasizing the necessity of their custodial interrogation to unravel the details of the complex scheme. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, presiding over the case, highlighted the gravity of the allegations and the intricate nature of the financial transactions involved.
The fraud case, investigated by Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing, was initiated based on a complaint from the director of Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt Ltd. The complaint alleges that Ajay Khera, Charu’s husband, together with their other son Siddharth Khera and additional family members, orchestrated a sophisticated fraud. They are accused of diverting business and funds from Seagull to their own newly formed companies, Azure Freight & Logistics LLP and Azure International LLC, involving deceptive cross-border transactions.
The court remarked on the severity of the offences, describing them as “grave” and indicative of a “well-orchestrated financial fraud” leading to significant financial loss. “Conspiracies are hatched and executed in the dark,” Justice Sharma stated, noting the challenge of obtaining direct evidence in conspiracy cases, especially when the accused are closely related, which complicates the extraction of truthful information.
The court’s decision underscores the high stakes involved in safeguarding economic integrity and the need for thorough investigative processes in cases involving significant financial manipulations. “The facts in the present case are alarming in nature,” the court observed, stressing the potential impact of such offences on the commercial and economic sectors.
Despite the Kheras’ defense claiming they were merely signatories who played no active role in the alleged fraud, the court found the evidence presented by the prosecution compelling enough to necessitate further investigation, including custodial interrogation. The ruling reflects a cautious approach by the judiciary, balancing the presumption of innocence against the imperative to thoroughly investigate and prosecute serious economic crimes.
