Public wealth must serve common good, free from fraud: Punjab and Haryana High Court

It added that operating within a cool, pre-mediated design, such offenders weaponise regulatory lacunae to siphon off public wealth, reducing the constitutional promise of common security to a cruel mockery and rendering the collective citizenry of the nation the silent victims of financial pillage.

Justice Sumeet Goel noted that economic offences involving financial trails, corporate records and diversion of funds require greater circumspection at the bail stage. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Against national economy, national interest’

The high court said economic offences breach public trust and faith, affect the nation’s interests and are not merely isolated infractions of private law. Such offences can involve sophisticated corporate syndicates, digital subterfuge or fiduciary deceit and can “strike directly at the heart of the national exchequer”.

It said, “Economic offence(s) are frequently characterized by calculated design, deliberation, sophistication and a conscious abuse of financial, commercial and fiduciary mechanisms.”

The court said such offences may involve manipulation of records, diversion or layering of funds, fictitious documentation, misuse of corporate structures and concealment of proceeds. It described such conduct as “nothing short of the cold-blooded institutionalized mugging of the public treasury dressed up in a tailored-suit.”

The court said specific material connecting an accused with an alleged transaction assumes importance at the bail stage.

Allegations in cloud-storage case

According to the Enforcement Directorate, Kharour was the founder of the “mycloudparticle” project through companies forming part of the Vuenow Group. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that Kharour exercised control over Vuenow Marketing Services Limited, Vuenow Infotech Private Limited, Zebyte Infotech Private Limited and Zebyte Rental Planet Private Limited.

The agency alleged that Kharour and his team conducted seminars encouraging investors to purchase “cloud particles” with representations relating to cloud storage and rental returns. The ED further alleged a mismatch between the storage capacity sold to investors and actual operational capacity and that money received from later investors was used to make payments to earlier investors.

The agency also alleged that funds were transferred between group companies through fake invoices and money collected from customers and investors was diverted for luxury vehicles, jewellery, shares and property.

The order records the ED’s allegation that Kharour received Rs 14.91 crore from Vuenow Marketing Services Ltd between April 5, 2019 and October 6, 2024, and Rs 6.20 crore from Vuenow Infotech Private Limited between June 22, 2020 and October 1, 2024.

Court rejects bail

Kharour’s defence argued that he had spent more than 19 months in custody and that the prosecution case was largely documentary. It also raised his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The prosecution complaint, filed on April 24, 2025, cites 52 witnesses and more than 7,000 pages of documents.

The high court held that prolonged custody alone did not justify bail. It noted that material witnesses were yet to be examined and that the trial had not reached a stage warranting release solely based on incarceration.

It also considered bail granted to co-accused Dimple Kharour but held that parity is not automatic and depends on each accused’s role and the material against them. It concluded that Kharour did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and dismissed his bail plea. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not affect the merits of the case before the trial court.