9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injuries to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave State of Gujarat and State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the concerned Sessions Judge; [e] mark presence with the respondent No.2 on every Monday of each English Calendar month for a period of three months and thereafter on any day of the first week of each English Calendar month for a period of one year; [f] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. - CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO.24111 of 2015, CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL) NO.21652 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 3-2-2016 - HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI DR S. K. GUPTA, SENIOR COUNSEL ASSISTED BY MR. SOEB R. BHOHARIA AND VALIMOHAMMED PATHAN, ADVOCATES FOR THE APPELLANT MS TRUSHA K PATEL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership firm by oral understanding, namely, M/s. Maruti Ahmedabad, Partnership Firm to carry on illegal activities like cricket betting, Hawala etc. It was found that against those persons, other offences were registered for betting at Unjha of District Mehsana as well as Ahmedabad and Mumbai. It was alleged in the FIR that during the raid, different types of electronic gadgets were discovered and about 147 Mobiles were collected which were being used for betting. The Sim Cards which were being used by those persons, found to be forged and the same were collected in bogus names. It was also found that by creating bogus documents and forging signatures in the applications form, different Sim Cards were purchased and the same were used for cricket betting which is an illegal activity. 3.3 The Investigating Agency recorded the statement of the above referred accused persons and started further investigation. It was found that one Ankush Bansal, his brother Ritesh Bansal and one Mukesh Kumar son of late Jaikishan Sharma who are resident of Delhi, were also found to be in contact with those four accused. The applicant was operating his illegal racket from Mumbai. The applicant accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the applicant had indulged in similar kind of crime for which an offence was registered in the year 2013 by Crime Branch of Mumbai registered as FIR No.61 of 2013 dated 15.5.2013 wherein the allegations were made against the applicant of match fixing etc. and complaint was lodged against him for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 479, 420, 34 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act which has alleged to have connection in the present offence of alleged cricket betting. However, he would submit that there is no link between the two offences. He would submit that the present applicant is neither accused of any scheduled offence with regard to the present cricket betting nor any scheduled offence is alleged to have been committed nor it is the case of the respondent No.2 or complaint has been lodged that the applicant has committed any scheduled offence. He would submit that the respondent No.2 has tried to link the two offences, one is of Mumbai in which he has already been released on bail by a competent Court way back in the year 2013, and the present offence. However, the authority has miserably fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar bail. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Ms. Trusha Patel appearing for the respondent No.2 original complainant has vehemently submitted that huge scam of Hawala to the tune of about ₹ 2500 Crores has come in light in the game of Cricket betting. The investigation till date carried out and record recovered and seized from the Farm house at Vadodara on 19.3.2015 reveals that those four accused had received and placed various bets from large number of bookies and punters amounting to ₹ 2500 Crores on different Cricket matches played between 4.12.2014 till 19.3.2015 i.e. the date on which the farm house was raided and searched under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the ongoing ICC World Cup Quarterfinal match between India and Bangladesh. She would submit that the investigation revealed that the applicant along with other accused were actively participating in the illegal activities of betting. 5.1 It was further argued by Ms. Patel that unless and until there is conspiracy between the applicant and other co-accused to project and/or claim the untainted property which has been received through cricket betting, false and fabricated Sim C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided under the PMLA Act, the Court may not use his powers under Section 439 of the Code. 6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. If the complaint is looked into, the present applicant along with other six accused have been charged under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act. The four accused against whom FIR being C.R. No. I-85 of 2015 was lodged on 25.3.2015 at Kishanvadi Police Station, the present applicant is not implicated as an accused. For the ready reference and for appreciating the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties, certain provisions of the PMLA Act are reproduced herein below :- 7. Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act read as under :- 3. Offence of money-laundering - Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. 4. Punishment for money-laundering - Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless - (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by - (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for any scheduled offence. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by Ms. Trusha Patel in the case of Gautam Kundu (Supra) is not applicable since the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the accused was facing charge of a scheduled offence. 16. I have gone through the unreported decision dated 5.10.2015 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram :- Hon'ble Ms. Justice Harsha Devani) in the case of Afroz Mohmad Hasanfatta v. Deputy Director and another, Criminal Misc. Application No.17000 of 2014. I have also gone through another unreported decision dated 31.3.2015 of the coordinate Bench of this Court (Coram :- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paresh Upadhyay) in the case of Rakesh Manekchand Kothari v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, in Criminal Misc. Application No.3637 of 2015 wherein the coordinate Bench has dealt with similar offence and has refused to release the applicant on bail on the ground that he is not facing any charge of scheduled offence which order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have also considered the order dated 8.1.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.17326 of 2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
