9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amonds worth ₹ 8,17,21,664/- to one M/s. Star Traders, Mumbai/Surat which was a proprietorship firm of Raj Kumar Patodia. However, the income tax return does not indicate regarding the claim of Sri Manoj Kumar about the sale of diamonds as stated above. It has also come during course of investigation that the address of M/s. Star Traders has been given in the invoices submitted by Sri Manoj Kumar which is apparently false as there is no firm in existence in the name of M/s. Star Traders at Surat. In fact the son of Raj Kumar Patodia had denied being aware of any purchase of diamond or of the residential address of his father which had been provided by the petitioner Manoj Kumar. In fact, with respect to the agricultural income for which reliance has been placed on various documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in course of investigation, the statements of several persons who were said to have purchased the agricultural produce have stated otherwise which also contradicts the claim of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Singh regarding his explanation with respect to the income from agricultural produce. An economic offence is a grave offence and considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was a recovery of 169 fixed deposit receipts investing ₹ 12,54,45, 499/- with Uttar Pradesh Chhetriya Gramin Bank, Magarpal, Murtaza branch, Chhapra; 24 fixed deposits worth ₹ 12,75,000/- invested with United Bank of India, R. K. Mission Extension Counter, Morhabadi, Ranchi; ₹ 4,49,000/- in the savings bank account of Sri Manoj Kumar in United Bank of India, R. K. Mission Extension Counter, Morhabadi, Ranchi and ₹ 23,77,977 from the savings bank account of Sri Manoj Kumar from Uttar Pradesh Chhetriya Gramin Bank, Magarpal, Murtaza branch, Chhapra. Pursuant to the search and seizure as indicated above, the Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand had registered an FIR being Vigilance Case No. 23 of 2009. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted only against Sri Manoj Kumar under Sections 13 (1) (E) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467, 468, 469, 471 and 420 of I.P.C. and accordingly cognizance was also taken under the aforesaid provisions of law. The order taking cognizance was challenged by Sri Manoj Kumar Singh in Cr.M.P. No. 1913 of 2013 and vide order dated 07.03.2014, the order dated 16.04.2010 und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioners have been implicated for being the brothers of Manoj Kumar. In course of investigation, none of the witnesses have taken the name of these petitioners. It has been stated that both the petitioners are in custody since 28.02.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a judgment in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40. Mr. Amit Kumar Das and Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement have drawn the attention of the court to the investigation which came to the conclusion that Valuer had prepared the valuation report without physical verification, only for the purposes of pecuniary gain. While relying on the investigation, reference has been made to the purported sale of diamonds by the accused Manoj Kumar which were found to be false. He has also submitted that the agricultural income as shown by the accused Manoj Kumar, in view of the statement of some of the buyers has also been falsified. Learned counsels also indicated about the conduct of the petitioners to the effect that they had only surrendered once processes under Sections 82 83 Cr.P.C. have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me from agricultural produce. So far as the petitioner in B. A. No. 2806 of 2020 is concerned, they appear to have been implicated being the brothers of the main accused Sri Manoj Kumar. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to some of the pronouncements which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of Shri P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra), it has been held with respect to the factors guiding consideration of bail as follows: 22. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:- (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character beha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an unconvicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson. 24. In the instant case, we have already noticed that the pointing finger of accusation against the appellants is the seriousness of the charge . The offences alleged are economic offences which have resulted in loss to the State exchequer. Though, they contend that there is a possibility of the appellants tampering with the witnesses, they have not placed any material in support of the allegation. In our v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
