9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddi Mahesh and others conspired together and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they created false and forged documents for the purpose of cheating and by using the said documents as if they are genuine, made transactions in various banks fraudulently and dishonestly with an intention to have a wrongful gain to them and loss to the Government of India by transferring huge amounts to a tune of Rs. 569 crores in foreign exchange, outside India i.e. Singapore, Hong Kong and China. As the offences committed are part of schedule offences of PML Act, investigation was initiated under the PML Act and during the course of investigation, they have observed that Vaddi Mahesh and others created many private limited companies and proprietary firms and opened bank accounts in Kolkata, Visakhapatnam and other places, in a number of Nationalized and Private Banks, in the name of the said companies/firms. On 13.07.2017 said Vaddi Mahesh has given a statement under Section 50 of PML Act admitting that he has transferred funds to the tune of nearly Rs. 1,500/- crores by using forged documents to various foreign companies located in China, Hong Kong and Singapore as per the instruction received by him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... electric devices were seized. The application is filed under Section 17(4) of PML Act vide O.A. No. 438 of 2021 for retaining the seized documents and the same is pending before the adjudicating authority (PML Act), Delhi. It is further stated in the counter that money laundering is a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the countries but also to the integrity and sovereignty and in the present crime huge amounts approximately to a tune of Rs. 1,500 crores were laundered. In various cases, several High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that bail should not be granted for the offences punishable under PML Act. He placed reliance on decisions reported in 1) Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy vs. CBI 2013 7 SCC 439, 2) P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 9 SCC 24 and 3) Vakamulla Chandrasekhar vs. Enforcement Directorate 2017 (356) ELT 395 (Del.) in W.P. (Crl.) No. 852 of 2017. 5. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner had intentionally failed to appear before the officers of Directorate since 2017 and he is coming up with one or the other excuse evading his appearance. Therefore, in view of the conduct of the petitioner respondent No. 2 officials a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der as the same was directed against CID, Vijayawada and not CID, Visakhapatnam. Therefore, the petitioner and his son again knocked the doors of the Court below by filing Crl. M.P. No. 10 of 2021 in Crl. M.P. No. 741 of 2018 seeking modification of the orders passed in Crl. M.P. No. 741 of 2018 but the same was dismissed by order dated 08.03.2021 observing that the bail order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 741 of 2018 in crime No. 181 if 2017 of MVP Police Station, Visakhapatnam binds on the investigating agency even if the case is transferred to a different investigating agency. As the petitioner is apprehending arrest in the hands of respondent No. 2 officials, he has approached this Court by way of this criminal petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner received summons directing him to appear on 07.10.2020 to which the petitioner addressed letter dated 01.10.2020 stating that in view of the COVID-19 and his health condition he is not in a position to travel, as such his personal appearance may not be insisted and if his personal appearance is required, another date may be fixed for his appearance. Again summons were issued on 01.12.2020 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner if he is granted pre-arrest bail. In view of the nature of accusation committed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for pre-arrest bail. He placed reliance on a decision reported in Jagamohan Reddy vs. CBI (referred supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that while granting bail the Courts have to keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 14. The first contention of learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the offences under PML Act cause a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also integrity and sovereignty and for the offences under the PML Act, pre-arrest bail should not be granted. There is no remedy of anticipatory bail in the scheme of PML Act. He relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Vakamulla Chandrasekhar vs. Enf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t clear that granting anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation will frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court and grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. 18. As rightly argued by learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also the integrity and sovereignty. Absolutely there is no dispute about the legal position put forth, but the petitioners therein were accused in money laundering cases and basing on the facts of those cases the Hon'ble Apex Court held that granting bail at the stage of investigation would frustrate investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and also the materials, which might have been concealed. In those circumstances the Hon'ble Apex Court has refused to grant anticipatory bail and felt custodial interrogation was necessary. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion mechanically. 21. In the case on hand admittedly summons were issued to the petitioner in the year 2017 directing him to appear before the officials whereas the case of the petitioner is that he received summons in the year 2020 only and he mentioned reasons why he was not present before the officials and in support of the same the petitioner filed certain documents. 22. Basing on the statement of one Ayush Goyal, who is nephew of the petitioner herein the petitioner was summoned and search was also conducted in the house of the petitioner during which certain articles were also seized and the petitioner's statement was recorded. Generally the Courts would hesitate to. grant anticipatory bail in case where there is reasonable apprehension that securing presence of the accused is difficult and there is every likelihood that he may influence witnesses and tamper the evidence. In this case according to the learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 summons were issued to the petitioner in 2017. Now after four years, respondent No. 2-officials cannot have these apprehensions because if at all the petitioner intends to indulge in such activities he must have done by this ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
