9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner came to be arrested on 19.06.2019 and since 28.06.2019, the petitioner is under judicial custody in the aforesaid ECIR. 3. In the present FIR, the petitioner has not been arrested till date. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR came to be registered on 06.12.2018 at the instance of one Ashish Begwani, who being the Director and authorized representative of 'Enso Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as EIPL), made a complaint that in August, 2010, he met Ravi Parthasarthy, Hari Sankaran, K. Ramchand, Mukund Gajanan Sapre and Sanjiv Krishan Rai in Mumbai. In the said meeting, he was told that the company 'IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as ITNL) being part of the IL&FS Group, was involved in developing, operating and facilitating surface transportation infrastructure projects. He was told that IL&FS group was a Government backed entity. He was, in particular, apprised of the Gurgaon Metro Project which was promoted by ITNL through 'Enso Rail Systems Ltd.', later came to be known as 'IL&FS Rail Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as ILRL). 5. On such representation, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as an Assistant Vice-President and later, was sent on deputation to ITNL, where he continued as Managing Director till October, 2018, when he was asked to resign. B) The complainant's allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by the petitioner in specific and by the accused persons in general, is nothing but a falsehood and an afterthought. The same is evident from the following facts: i) The petitioner neither met the complainant in August, 2010 nor enticed him in any manner. The complainant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner for the subsequent meetings. ii) The complainant had acquired shares of EIPL from the secondary market from June/September, 2010 onwards. The petitioner in fact, had shown displeasure and condemned the entry of the complainant's company in ILRL vide emails dated 21.11.2011 and 22.11.2011, which were sent by him to Sanjiv Krishan Rai, who was the Managing Director of ILRL. Reference was also made to the show cause notice dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Income Tax authorities to contend that the complainant himself is of dubious character. iii) The complainant had agreed that R.L. Kabra would continue as a D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Chauhan, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the petitioner had joined IL&FS in the year 1994. He remained associated with ILRL since 2009 and resigned as a Director only on 27.01.2011. The petitioner remained associated with ITNL since 2008 as a Managing Director and resigned only in October, 2018. ITNL was the promoter company of ILRL and its majority shareholder. ITNL & ILRL had a written agreement to the effect that that any sub-contracting would be done with the consent of ITNL. Both Mukund G. Sapre and Sanjiv Krishan Rai used to report to the present petitioner, who was the Managing Director of ITNL. 10. It was further submitted that the petitioner along with others had enticed the complainant to invest in ILRL. Despite the complainant purchasing shares of ILRL by taking over the EIPL, he was deliberately not allowed to become a Director. The petitioner conspired with other co-accused persons to defraud not only the complainant but the other shareholders of ILRL as well. 11. The bogus contracts were awarded during the petitioner's tenure. Even if only two contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29.10.2020. 15. In rebuttal, Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the dismissal of petitioner's bail in the ED case was on entirely different parameters. It was additionally submitted that the sanction granted for investigations conducted by the SFIO has already been quashed by the Bombay High Court on account of non-application of mind. In both of the above cases, the SLP is preferred before the Supreme Court. 16. Before proceeding further, I deem it apposite to refer to the relevant parameters, as culled from various judicial pronouncements, to be kept in mind, at the time of consideration of an anticipatory bail application. 17. The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. reported as (2011) 1 SCC 694, laid down the following parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. 92.2. It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the Public Prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail. 92.3. Nothing in Section 438 CrPC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was constituted, which was authorized to recommend for finalization of contracts to the Board. iv) The COD awarded contracts (alleged to be bogus contracts) for the purpose of land clearance, as detailed in the Status Report, to the following 10 companies: S.No Name of the Company Gross Total amount as per WO (a) Period of amount paid from to Gross TDS / Building Cess / WCT deducted (b) Gross Total Amount Paid (a)-(b) 1. M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Ltd. 218,800,000 15.07.2013 07.04.2014 15,753,600 203,046,400 2. Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. 18,988,554 21.7.2010 18.05.2011 180,173 18,808,381 3. AMR Constructions Ltd. 85,650,701 06.09.2010 09.05.2011 2,046,199 83,604,502 4. NKG Infrastructure Ltd. 130,566,480 03.09.2011 20.12.2011 3,916,994 126,649,486 5. NKC Projects Pvt. Ltd. 109,450,652 30.04.2013 30.05.2013 7,280,446 102,170,206 6. Ethical Constructions Pvt. Ltd. 23,000,000 30.05.2013 30.05.2013 1,656,000 21,344,000 7. Prathyusha Resources & Infra Pvt. Ltd. 58000,000 30.05.2013 30.05.2013 1,656,000 5,3824,000 8. ARSS Infra Projects Ltd. 117,200,000 04.12.2013 18.07.2014 8,622,400 108,577,600 9. Divyanshi Infra Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his position as Managing Director in October, 2018. xv) The present is not a simpliciter case of commercial transaction gone bad between two individuals but of siphoning off the public money. xvi) The petitioner's regular bail application in the ECIR case has been rejected by the Bombay High Court on 29.10.2020. xvii) The co-accused R.L. Kabra was released on regular bail after considering his medical condition. Mukund Sapre was also released on regular bail after spending considerable time in custody. 20. 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 na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Equally, the petitioner's submission that it could be only a case of lack of supervision on his part, is not convincing as bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
