9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 620 - HC - Money LaunderingGrant of anticipatory bail - money laundering - siphoning of funds - allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by the petitioner - bogus contracts - HELD THAT - The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. The alleged acts were committed when the petitioner was assuming office as a Director of ILRL and also as the Managing Director of ITNL. The Committee of Directors , which awarded the contracts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the petitioner s tenure in ILRL. In fact, the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The petitioner s knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts cannot be ruled out. The investigation qua the petitioner as well as the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off amount is still pending. Apparently, the money that is alleged to be siphoned off is public money and the offence is grave in nature. Indeed, the Investigating Officer has interrogated the petitioner twice, however looking at the gravity of the offence and the aspect of pending investigation relating to finding out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned off money, this Court finds itself in disagreement with the submission that no more interrogation in custody is required. This Court cannot overlook the submission made on behalf of the State that the petitioner had occupied the highest office and as such, the risk of his tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses also cannot be completely ruled out. The other co-accused namely R.L. Kabra and Mukund Sapre have been released on regular bail and as such, the petitioner cannot claim parity with them. The Court, in these facts and circumstances, cannot turn down the prayer of the Investigating Officer seeking custodial interrogation. Bail application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? 2. The nature and gravity of the accusations against the petitioner. 3. The role of the petitioner in the alleged offenses. 4. The necessity of custodial interrogation for the investigation. 5. The delay in filing the FIR and its implications. 6. The petitioner's age and health conditions. 7. Parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in FIR No. 253/2018 registered under Sections 409/467/468/471/120B IPC. The court referred to the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. These include considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role of the accused, the possibility of fleeing from justice, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 2. The nature and gravity of the accusations against the petitioner. The petitioner, a former Managing Director of ITNL, was accused of defrauding the complainant and other shareholders by awarding bogus contracts worth ?94 crores. The accusations are serious, involving economic offenses that affect the community at large. The court emphasized that economic offenses are committed with deliberate design and have severe consequences on the national economy. 3. The role of the petitioner in the alleged offenses. The petitioner was alleged to have been involved in enticing the complainant to invest in ILRL and in awarding bogus contracts during his tenure. The court noted that the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The contracts were awarded without inviting any tender, signing any contract, or seeking performance guarantees. The court found that the petitioner’s knowledge and involvement in the alleged offenses could not be ruled out. 4. The necessity of custodial interrogation for the investigation. The court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation, citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in State Rep. By The CBI v. Anil Sharma and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement. Custodial interrogation is deemed more effective for eliciting useful information and uncovering concealed materials. The court found that custodial interrogation was necessary to find out the real beneficiaries of the siphoned-off money. 5. The delay in filing the FIR and its implications. The FIR was registered on 06.12.2018, while the complaint was filed on 06.08.2018. The transactions in question relate to the years 2010-2014. The court noted that the delay in filing the FIR did not diminish the gravity of the offense, which involved siphoning off public money. 6. The petitioner's age and health conditions. The petitioner is 65 years old. However, the court did not find this sufficient to grant anticipatory bail, given the seriousness of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation. 7. Parity with co-accused who have been granted bail. The court noted that the co-accused R.L. Kabra and Mukund G. Sapre were granted regular bail due to their medical conditions and after spending considerable time in custody. The petitioner could not claim parity with them, as his role and the need for custodial interrogation were different. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation to uncover the real beneficiaries of the siphoned-off money and the gravity of the economic offenses involved. The court also noted that the petitioner’s role as a high-ranking official increased the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
|
