9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the file of the Principal Session Judge, Chennai and it is pending. This Court already dismissed the bail petition on two occasions and this Court does not find any change of circumstances to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no change of circumstances to consider the third bail petition of the petitioner. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. - CRL.O.P.No.10980 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2020 - Mr. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan For the Petitioner : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar For the Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER The petitioner who was arrested and remanded judicial custody on 06.07.2019 at the hands of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ckground has not even disclosed and the address of the company is also forged one. The said account holder has no financial background and business background to the integrated sum of nearly ₹ 15 crores from 15 different bank accounts. On the request made by the proprietorship by filing proforma invoice and declaration as required under Section 10(5) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the said amount remitted for imports. The said remittances were received by other different beneficiaries located in Hong Kong. On investigation, the respondent seized incriminating documents and found that the petitioner and other accused have committed offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Therefore, the petitioner was arrested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akumar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement . 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police filed counter and submitted that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) No.ECOF/CEZO/13/2017 dated 29.09.2017 was recorded by the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office-II for investigation under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. It was recorded on the basis of the instruction from Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, the CBI registered the regular case in R.C.No.219 2016 E 0019 for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4.1. The crux of the allegation is that fraudulent high value forex outwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e beneficial to the tune of ₹ 3500 crores. On the investigation and search there are incriminating documents recovered from the petitioner and it reveals that all the documents were different in name and father's name but the photographs are one and the same person. The petitioner was examined and recorded statement under Section 50(3) of PMLA and also it recovered incriminating documents. He misused his father's photograph and opened account in the different names. He had fabricated document to open the bank account in the names of various entities and indulged in transaction of foreign exchange to the extent of USD 2,184,785.00 equivalent INR 14,47,87,000.90 on 24 different occasions to four overseas entities abroad, during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this context even if the statements on record and materials gathered are taken note, the complicity of the appellant will have to be established in the trial and if convicted, the appellant will undergo sentence. For the present, as taken note the anticipatory bail had been declined earlier and the appellant was available for custodial interrogation for more than 45 days. In addition to the custodial interrogation if further investigation is to be made, the appellant would be bound to participate in such investigation as is required by the respondent. Further it is noticed that one of the co-accused has been granted bail by the High Court while the other co-accused is enjoying interim protection from arrest. The appellant is aged a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he witnesses. Now the respondent laid charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.26 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Chennai and it is pending. This Court already dismissed the bail petition on two occasions and this Court does not find any change of circumstances to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court finds no change of circumstances to consider the third bail petition of the petitioner. Therefore this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of twelve months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal original petition is dismissed. - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
