9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 80.00 Crores from 19,18,865 depositors under 32,02,628 claims/accounts as on 30.11.2014, with a promise to return the amounts with high rate of interest or registering a piece of land after developing it as plots for the money invested on the deposits and accordingly issued receipts for the group deposits as if it was an advance to a piece of land. The depositors deposited their hard earned money in Agri Gold Group of Companies believing the promises of the company. Avva Venkata Rama Rao criminally conspired with other accused Directors in the companies and established 156 subsidiary companies under Agri Gold Group for the purpose of tax evasion and protection from Land Ceiling Act and to divert the funds collected by the Primary Companies etc. from the depositors. The modus operandi of the scheme of the Agri Gold Group Companies was that they would lure the gullible public to join as depositors in their schemes and encourage them to pay the desired deposits either directly or through the agents for allotting a developed plot in the nearby locality or to pay back their money with high rate of interest. The said companies did not mention either the actual market value of the land or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d invested in myriad verticals and in private companies which were directly owned by their family and that they have diverted the funds to their group companies/invested huge money in unrelated businesses/sectors, payments of commissions to the individual directors relatives and huge payments by way of commissions to the agents and their and thus, they have dishonestly misappropriated the money deposited with them to the tune of Rs. 6300.00 Crores. Accused could not be able to explain the utilization of the entire amount collected from the investors and they are evasive and are not able to explain the reason for diversification of public funds into private subsidiary companies in unrelated sectors for personal gain. Hence, it is established the accused are directly involved in laundering the ill-gotten wealth which is acquired by duping the lakhs of gullible public in the guise of real estate business. 3. Heard Sri M.P. Kashyap, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. A. Krishnaveni; Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate, assisted by Sri K. Ajay Kumar and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same was not considered and as such there is an apprehension and threat of arrest to the petitioner in connection with the said case. He further submits that the petitioner has been regularly attending the office of the 1st respondent as and when called for and the investigation by the C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and Telangana was completed and at this point of time, there is no necessity of custodial interrogation of the petitioner by the Directorate of Enforcement Authorities. 5. It is also submitted that a PIL was filed before this Court, wherein the Chairman of Agrigold Group of Companies sought a relief of resolution in the case, where it was proposed that few lands to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- Crores mobilization has been taken up and the presence of the petitioner is essential to assist in the matter. It is further submitted that it is alleged by the Directorate of Enforcement, in the arrest intimation report of the others connected with the present case, that the information and documents were not submitted to their office in spite of repeated opportunities is utterly false and that the petitioner is cooperating with the Directorate of Enforcement since issuance of its first su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka may be complete, but the money laundering investigation of Enforcement Directorate is still pending. He further submits that there is no provision of pre-arrest bail as far as Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 is concerned and hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. He further submits that there are strong allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime and that the petitioner is already facing various charge sheets by LEAs. He further submits that an amount of Rs. 6300.00 Crores was collected from 39 lakhs depositors. He further submits that the investigation is at very crucial stage and the documents and other material which were seized in the residence of the petitioner are yet to be verified and the same require further investigation to establish the role of the present petitioner and, therefore, sustained questioning and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted to unearth the proceeds of the crime. He further submits that taking note of huge magnitude of conspiracy angle and involvement of the petitioner and pending interrogation of the petitioner, granting any sort of relief including; anticipato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it is quite possible that the person prosecuted for the scheduled offence is different from the person prosecuted for the offence under the 2002 Act. Mr. X may be a person who is liable to be prosecuted for an offence, which is contained in Part A of the Schedule. In perpetrating this offence under Part A of the Schedule, Mr. X may have been paid a certain amount of money. This money is; ultimately traced to Mr. Y, who is charged with the same offence under Part A of the Schedule and is also charged with possession of the proceeds of crime, which he now projects as being untainted. Mr. X applies for bail to the Special Court/High Court. Despite the fact that Mr. X is not involved in the money laundering offence, but only in the scheduled offence, by virtue of the fact that the two sets of offences are being tried together, Mr. X would be denied bail because the money laundering offence is being tried along with the scheduled offence, for which Mr. Y alone is being prosecuted. This illustration would show that a person who may have nothing to do with the offence of money laundering may yet be denied bail, because of the twin conditions that have to be satisfied under Section 45(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that "the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it" is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438(2") read with Section 437(3") should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible "formula" which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice-to impose special c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with required information as and when called for. The delay in issuing the notice after two years has not been properly explained by the respondent authorities. Moreover, the main accused in this case have already been arrested and their custodial interrogation has already been done by the respondent authorities and they have stated that various movable and immovable properties worth Rs. 4109.13 Crores of Agri Gold Group, its Promoters/Directors and other connected persons have already been attached vide Provisional Attachment Order "No. 4/2020, dated 24.12.2020. Further, the respondent authorities have not properly explained why the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is required. Moreover, the application for anticipatory bail in case of P. Chidambaram 2019 (3) ALT (Crl.) 529 (SC) : (2019) 9 SCC 24 (supra), which was relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent authorities, was rejected on merits of the allegations and other materials and hence, the facts and circumstances of that case are entirely different from the facts of the present case. 14. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and since the petitioner has been regularly attending before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
