9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Apprehension of arrest - HELD THAT:- The father of the petitioner had already been arrested who was lateron granted regular bail by the Special Judge and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been called time and again by the respondent (ED) and when he moved his anticipatory bail application before the Ld. Special Judge, it was opposed tooth and nail by the respondent, so it cannot be said that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner in regard to his arrest is a mere fear or it is a vague apprehension. There is nothing to show that as to for what purpose, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the alleged offence entail maximum sentence of 7 years with fine - petitioner is allowed to be released on bail subject to condition imposed - bail application allowed. - BAIL APPLN. 3619/2021 and CRL.M.A. 15810/2021 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sethi, Mr. Anushasit Arya, Mr. Sumit Rana, Mr. Abhinav Sekri and Mr. Harsh Yadav, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Mr.Zoheb Hossain, Adv. (Special Counsel for ED). ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FFCO and IPL. During the commission of crime, sham consultancy agreements and fake invoices for consultancy services were prepared without providing any such services and thus commission was received by group companies of Rajeev Saxena without any genuine transaction and that money was actually illegal commission generated out of import of fertilizers and raw material. 5. It is alleged that accused Amarendra Dhari Singh acted as intermediary along with other accused for channelizing the ill gotten money through different firms and companies. It is alleged that in this manner, ₹ 685 Crores approximately were received in the bank accounts of the group companies and individual account of Rajeev Saxena and other accused including accused Amarendra Dhari Singh. It is alleged that the fertilizers were imported fraudulently at inflated rates and the money was diverted abroad also through complex transactions. It is also the case of ED that in order to provide relief to the farmers, Government of India has been providing subsidies on different types of fertilizers and in calculating subsidy, the cost price of imported fertilizer is important and as such, due to the crime of accuse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llicit activities. Alankit Group of Companies was unable to produce any genuine consultancy agreement with Triton Trading DMCC from which it had received funds in their accounts. 9. After the completion of investigation, charge sheet in the form of complaint was filed against accused Amarendra Dhari Singh, accused Alok Kumar Agarwal, accused Sh. Chandra Shekhar Jha and three companies ie. Alankit Limited, Alankit Assignments Limited DMCC and Alankit Global Resources DMCC. In the complaint filed by the ED in the form of charge sheet, a prayer was made to permit the complainant i.e. ED to file supplementary complaint with regard to ongoing investigation. 10. During the course of investigation, petitioner/accused has been summoned on 24 occasions by the IO of ED for the purpose of interrogation with regard to the role of his proprietorship concern i.e. Alankit Management Consultancy, Dubai in the alleged offence of money laundering. Petitioner/accused apprehends that on the basis of similar allegations made against his father i.e. co-accused Alok Kumar Agarwal, he might be arrested in this case. 11. I have heard Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Ld. Sr. Advocate for the petitioner and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed in the said PC. 15. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had filed its reply before the Special Judge and in the reply it has been submitted that there is no likelihood or apprehension of the arrest of the petitioner. But on the other hand, the said application was vehemently opposed by the respondent and in a sense the respondent had taken a contradictory stand. He further submitted that the Special Judge has mainly dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the agreement between M/s Trans Agri DMCC and M/s Alankit Management Consultancies primafacie does not appear to be a genuine transaction and the witness in the complaint are the employees of the petitioner. He further submitted that there are no allegations against the petitioner that he tried to influence any witness or tried to tamper with the evidence despite the allegations that the offence was committed during the period 2018-2020. 16. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that according to the respondent it has been stated in the PC that the investigation to identify any further proceeds of crime related to schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that the petitioner has submitted all the agreements to the IO and the same were confronted by the IO with accused Alok Kumar Aggarwal at the stage of his interrogation. He further submitted that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of his arrest as the respondent has filed charge sheetcum-prosecution complaint and cognizance of the offence has been taken by the Ld. Special Judge vide order dated 07.08.2021. He further submitted that the statements of the witnesses and Chairman of the Alankit Group of Companies have already been recorded and the respondent has failed to show any ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. He further submitted that even as per the respondent, the petitioner is not a flight risk nor there are allegations that he has tried to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He further submitted that the petitioner satisfies the triple test as observed in the P. Chidambaram s case. 19. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that no offence U/s 3 of PMLA has been committed by the petitioner and the PC does not disclose commission of any schedule offence in referenced to the alleged transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted as what has been uncovered so far may be the proverbial tip of the iceberg and the amount of proceeds of crime is much higher than amount detected so far and blanket protection may not be granted to the offenders in the form of anticipatory bail order. 23. In the instant case, as per the respondent, the prosecution complaint has already been filed against six accused persons and cognizance has been taken by the Special Court vide order dated 07.08.2021 and summons have been issued to accused No. 1 to 6 and the name of the petitioner does not figure in the array of six summoned accused. The respondent had sought the summoning of accused Nos. 4 and 5 companies through the present petitioner but the Special Judge had refused to issue summoning order against accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 companies through the present petitioner or through accused Alok Aggarwal observing that ED cannot dictate as to who is going to represent accused No. 4 to 6 companies. So, the Ld. Special Judge has not summoned the petitioner in the capacity of the Director of accused No. 4 and 5 companies. 24. In the present case, it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner has not joined the invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
