No Anticipatory Bail in Seagull Maritime Agencies Fraud Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail applications of Aadhar Khera and Charu Khera, accused in a ₹400 crore financial fraud involving Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, while delivering the ruling, emphasized the gravity of the allegations, stating that they involved a well-orchestrated financial fraud resulting in the misappropriation of substantial sums of money.

The accused are alleged to have siphoned off funds to shell entities, Azure Freight & Logistics LLP and Azure International, in which they held key positions. The prosecution argues that the accused exploited their positions in Seagull Maritime to fraudulently divert company funds to their controlled firms and manipulate financial transactions to channel payments intended for Seagull into Azure’s accounts by forging bills of lading, invoices, and other documents.

Justice Sharma noted that although a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the interest of the complainant or the prosecution cannot be ignored. The court also highlighted the complexity of the financial transactions and the need to trace the misappropriated funds, arguing that custodial interrogation was necessary. The court stated, “It is very difficult to get direct evidence in conspiracies, and even more so when the alleged accused persons are so closely related to each other”.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of the director of Seagull Maritime Agencies Pvt Ltd, who claimed 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 newly incorporated entities — Azure Freight & Logistics LLP and Azure International LLC — involving deceptive cross-border transactions.

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.