2018 (5) TMI 2172 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - misappropriation of money for illegal monetary gains after demonetization - Conspiracy with Ashish Kumar, Bank Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, one Chartered Accountant and one mediator who used to bring money to the bank to earn huge profits by converting black money in the form of old demonetized currency into new currency notes - HELD THAT - From the statements of these two witnesses of the prosecution, it is evident that 10% commission of Yogesh Mittal was deposited in the various firms from where approximately INR 8 crores was transferred to the two firms of petitioner namely Shrinivas Enterprises and Jai Jinendra Sales Corporation over to the firms/companies of Govind Babu and Naveen Somani in discharge of the liability of Yogesh Mittal. Petitioner, if at all is a beneficiary for a sum of INR 2 lakhs the petitioner has no role in the deposit of cash in the accounts of Raj Kumar Goel or Yogesh Mittal from which demand drafts were made which were recovered from Kamal Jain, CA of Rohit Tandon. Evidence is documentary in nature and the trial is likely to take some time. Hence, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the petitioner. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of INR 1 lakhs with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/CMM further subject to the condition that the petitioner will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court concerned and in case of change of residential address the same will be intimated to the Court concerned. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Regular bail application in FIR involving multiple sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Regular Bail Application
The petitioner sought regular bail in FIR No. 205/2016 registered at PS Crime Branch for various offenses under Sections 406/409/420/468/471/188/120B IPC, along with Sections 467/109/201/34 IPC and Section 7/8/11/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved a conspiracy to convert demonetized currency into new notes for illegal gains.

Issue 2: Allegations and Charges
The FIR alleged a conspiracy involving Raj Kumar Goel, Ashish Kumar (Bank Manager), a Chartered Accountant, and a mediator to convert black money into new currency. The accused deposited old currency in bank accounts, issued demand drafts, and opened accounts with forged documents, misappropriating around ?25 crores post-demonetization. The charge sheet implicated several accused, including the petitioner, Rajesh Jain, in transferring significant sums between various firms during the demonetization period.

Issue 3: Defense Arguments
The petitioner's defense contended that he had no role in the initial conspiracy and was not a beneficiary of the transactions. The defense highlighted that the evidence was documentary and that the petitioner had no influence on witnesses. It was argued that the petitioner's involvement was limited to transferring funds between certain firms, with no personal benefit derived. The defense emphasized that the petitioner's role surfaced only in the second supplementary charge sheet.

Issue 4: Prosecution's Opposition
The prosecution opposed the bail application, asserting the petitioner's involvement in a larger conspiracy to convert demonetized currency into legal tender. The prosecution presented a flow chart detailing the alleged transactions, claiming that a significant amount was transferred to the petitioner's firms from accounts associated with the conspiracy. The prosecution argued that the petitioner played a role in transferring funds to fulfill liabilities of other firms involved in the scheme.

Issue 5: Court's Decision
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Court granted bail to the petitioner. The Court noted that the evidence was documentary in nature and that the trial was likely to be prolonged. The Court directed the petitioner to furnish a personal bond and surety, with conditions to not leave the country without court permission and to inform the court of any change in residential address.

Conclusion
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in the complex case involving multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the nature of evidence, the limited role attributed to the petitioner, and the likelihood of a protracted trial.