2022 (6) TMI 1395 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Huge amount invested by the investors were deposited in the account of sister companies of the GIPL to which applicant was one of the Directors - Amounts so deposited in the accounts of sister companies of GIPL were diverted for another purposes to another person. Investors are still awaiting for their return of hard-earned money - HELD THAT - As is evident from the record applicant is not named in the F.I.R. He was not the Director Office Bearer or Manager of the GIPL. He was Director of sister companies of GIPL. There is no evidence to show that the applicant at any point of time induced or propagate to invest money in the Bike Bot Scheme launched by the GIPL. Cheques said to have been issued in the matter were issued by one Karan Pal Singh. No amount has been credited in the personal account of the applicant. Thus keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and comparing the same with the ingredients of alleged offences the orders granting bail to co-accused Sanjay Goel Satinder Singh Bhasin Smt. Rekha Dinesh Pandey and Vijay Kumar Sharma and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Manoj Tyagi involved in Case Crime Nos. 385 of 2019 873 of 2019 697 of 2019 432 of 2019 and 362 of 2019 under Sections 409 420 467 468 471 201 120-B IPC Police Station Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two heavy sureties in each cases in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail applications filed on behalf of accused-applicant Manoj Tyagi in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple bail applications filed on behalf of the accused-applicant in similar cases, all heard together and decided by a common order. The applicant argued that he had no active role in the alleged offenses, was not named in the FIR, and was not connected to the Bike Bot Scheme. The prosecution's case against the applicant was deemed illegal and based on vague allegations. It was contended that the applicant did not have financial power, did not participate in board meetings, and was not involved in diverting funds. The applicant's role was distinguished from the main accused, and similar co-accused had been granted bail. The court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail based on the lack of evidence connecting him to the offenses and the principles of granting bail.

The opposing argument presented by the Additional Advocate General asserted that the applicant played an active role in the offenses, diverting a significant amount of money while being a director of sister companies of the main company involved. The prosecution argued that the applicant issued forged cheques and was involved in the offenses based on evidence collected during the investigation. The prosecution highlighted the admissions made by the applicant regarding his involvement in the companies concerned and the diversion of funds. The prosecution opposed the bail application based on the seriousness of the allegations and the pending criminal cases against the applicant.

The court considered the submissions from both parties and reviewed the entire record. It noted that the applicant was not named in the FIR and was not directly connected to the alleged offenses. Comparing the circumstances with the granted bail to other co-accused and following established bail principles, the court found that the applicant had made out a case for bail. The bail applications were allowed, and the applicant was granted bail in multiple cases under specific conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the trial process. Breach of the conditions would allow the prosecution to move for bail cancellation.