Ashneer Grover’s Relative Deepak Gupta Arrested by Economic Offences Wing in BharatPe Fund Misappropriation Case; Sent to 5-Day Police Custody

Delhi's Saket Court on Friday remanded Deepak Gupta, a former head of administration and procurement of BharatPe, to five days of police custody.

Arrest | Representational Image (Photo Credits: File Image)

New Delhi, September 20: Delhi's Saket Court on Friday remanded Deepak Gupta, a former head of administration and procurement of BharatPe, to five days of police custody. He has been arrested in the case of alleged cheating and forgery worth Rs 72 crore allegedly committed to BharatPe. There are allegations that Rs. 72 crore payments were made to bogus vendors in the name of the purchase of standis. Ashneer Grover and his wife, along with others, are also accused in this case.

Link Judicial Magistrate (First Class) granted five days' custody of Deepak Gupta to EoW Delhi police. The judge said that considering facts and circumstances of the case, that in the disclosure statement of the accused, Deepak Gupta, certain purchase orders were raised on the instance of other people. That certain bills were made through the personal computer of the accused, which needs to be recovered and investigated. Further, the email exchange between the accused and Amit Bansal needs to be investigated. Delhi HC Permits Ashneer Grover, Wife to Travel to Doha and UK.

"I deem it fit to grant 5 days police custody of accused Deepak Gupta in the present case," the judge said in the order. Delhi police produced Deepak Gupta, a relative of Ashneer Grover and former head of administration and procurement of BharatPe, to Saket court. Delhi police sought 10 days of custody of Deepak Gupta to investigate his role in this case. The Police sought remand to further investigate the case, to recover the computer, his relation with another accused, Amit Bansal, and to establish the flow of funds worth crores of rupees.

The counsel for the accused opposed the custody and said that an FIR was registered in May 2023 on the complaint filed in December 2022. It was submitted by the counsel that Deepak Gupta resides in Mumbai and came to Delhi whenever he was called by the investigation officer. Today the right to arrest has been exercised, he added. The counsel also submitted that there are 5 accused, of whom two were granted travel abroad permission by the High Court. The High Court made some serious remarks. Only after that, Delhi Police arrested the accused.

It was also submitted by the counsel that Day before yesterday statement of 100 people recorded after the travel permission was granted. The non cooperation is not a ground for arrest. Have they ever asked me to give the laptop and personal computer. The purchase order is with the complainant company, which I had left two years back, the counsel said. He also argued that "it is surprising to know that no fact finding committee was constituted to know to which nonexistent company payments of Rs. 72 crores were made. My (Deepak Gupta) laptop was confiscated by the complainant in January 2022." ‘Liable To Be Tried for Genocide’, Ashneer Grover Takes Dig at Authorities Amid Delhi Waterlogging.

"He came to Delhi 14 times to meet you, he was in constant touch. Have you ever asked to give laptop and personal computer? He was mere an employee," the counsel said. At this point, the investigation officer (IO) said that the accused used his personal computer for office work. "What's the necessity to arrest now after he met you 14 times." Advocate Vivek Jain appeared for complainant BharatPe and submitted that Deepak Gupta was not an employee. He was head of procurement; he was head of vendor registration.

Allegations are that you created the bogus vendor. Raised bills, and you made payment, he said. "Accused is misleading the court that the auditor had said that there was no fraud. Amit Bansal is the person who created 32 bogus vendors. Accused Deepak Gupta had emails from Amit Bansal. Accused himself write to GST and admitted that there were bogus vendors," he added. This submission was opposed by the counsel for the accused.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)

Share Now

Share Now