9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered in terms of the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA and the twin requirements, namely, (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, will have to be met. The allegations against the applicant are very serious in nature. A huge amount of rupees ninety-six thousand crores is supposed to have been laundered. There has been multiple layering, calling for painstaking and detailed investigations. The applicant has fully participated in the money laundering by lending his companies accounts to his brother and making accommodating entries. A sum of Rs. 35 crores is directly traceable to the applicant. A mere exculpatory statement to the respondent can never suffice to form a ground, leave alone a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the offence - the pendency of those investigations does not enure in favour of the applicant. Rather, considering his previous conduct, in furnishing fake addresses and remaining out of bounds of the investigating agencies for almost two years, necessitating the issuance of NBWs, interference with investigations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicant, submitted that the present application has been moved in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 4th January, 2022 passed in SLP (Crl.) No.7942/2021 . It was submitted that charge had not been framed and there were about 150 witnesses to be examined and there was no possibility of a quick trial. Therefore, in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court, the present application has been moved, since the Supreme Court clearly did not intend that the applicant should remain in custody. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgements in Fakhrey Alam v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 532, Kamlesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 270, Tunde Gbaja v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 450, C. Parthasarthy v. Director of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine TS 1075, Akula Ravi Teja v. State of A.P., 2020 SCC OnLine AP 1464, P.M.C. Mercantile Private Ltd. v. State, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 10242, S.M. Furtado v. C.B.I., 1996 SCC OnLine Ker 112. 4. It was submitted that the applicant was entitled to bail as Section 19 of the PMLA was not invoked as he had never been arrested. Without a recording under Section 19 of the PMLA an op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... investigation was complete, but here it was filed violating the provisions of Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA. The learned counsel urged that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Trial Courts were releasing the accused who had not been arrested during investigations on bail when they appeared before the court. It was submitted that the position being the same in the present case, the applicant having not been arrested during investigations, till the filing of the complaint and taking of cognizance by the court, he was entitled to bail. 7. Finally, it was submitted that the applicant was suffering from several health issues. He had lost an eye and after he had been sent to jail, his health had deteriorated and that he was fearing the loss of his other eye also. On that ground too, it was urged that the applicant be granted bail. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant also relied on various judgments, including Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 427, Siddharth v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 700, Aman Preet Singh v. C.B.I. Through Director 2021 SCC OnLine SC 941, Seriou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed No.2 to 5 - the applicant being the accused No.2 - were absconding and though they had initially joined investigations and given statements, in the statements recorded in August 2020, they had provided fake addresses and could not be traced. Five notices had been issued as listed in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent to this application, which had all been duly served, but the applicant had not extended any co-operation in the investigation. Therefore, the benefit of judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra) was not available to him. 11. It was submitted that the pre-requisite for grant of bail, when a person had not been arrested during investigation, was full co-operation during investigations, which was absent in the present case. It was submitted by the learned Special Counsel that the internal file of the respondent records the satisfaction and the reason to believe that the applicant was guilty (the file was produced for perusal of this Court and has been returned back). Therefore, there was no way the applicant could seek to benefit from his own conduct. 12. The learned Special Counsel further submitted that the role of the applicant ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s essentially an interlocutory order. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, issue-estoppel is not available to the respondent to oppose the bail application. There is no finality attached to an order upon an application for bail and therefore renewed applications for grant of bail can be moved from time to time. The Supreme Court in Parvinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) 12 SCC 615 had also occasion to deal with a similar situation where a bail application had been rejected and a Special Leave Petition had also been dismissed, though as withdrawn. It was observed that the fact that an earlier bail application was rejected and the SLP dismissed (as withdrawn by the applicant) would not make the fresh application illegal and not maintainable. 15. However, there is a caveat, namely, that the fresh bail application requiring to be decided afresh on merits may require the court to consider fresh circumstances and subsequent events, or otherwise, it will amount to a review of the previous decision. The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 had reiterated the said position. 8. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. Since the question of adherence or non-adherence to the provisions of Section 19 of the PMLA have been raised and rejected by a Coordinate Bench, there is no cause to discuss that again here. The conclusions remain the same. 17. The further plea that because the applicant has not been arrested, the rigors of Section 14 of the PMLA are not attracted, is a plea that is not supported by the decision in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), though argued so. Rather, to the contrary, it records that if the applicant is in custody, the provisions of the special Act would get applied. In the present case, at the time the bail application was moved, even before the learned Trial Court, the applicant was in custody. The grievance was that the applicant had been wrongly sent into custody and that even issuance of NBWs was wrong. Those issues cannot now be agitated before the court in a bail application. 18. In any case, even going by the judgment in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), when an accused is produced before the court, without arrest, it had powers to act under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to take a bond for appearance. That power has not been extinguished. In the present case, the NBWs were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies accounts to his brother and making accommodating entries. A sum of Rs. 35 crores is directly traceable to the applicant. A mere exculpatory statement to the respondent can never suffice to form a ground, leave alone a reasonable ground to believe that the applicant is not guilty of the offence. The investigations are continuing in respect of the scale of operations, but to say that because those investigations are continuing, an incomplete challan had been submitted and therefore, the applicant would technically be entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., would be a somewhat convoluted argument. The law by virtue of Explanation (ii) to Section 44(d) of the PMLA empowers the Directorate of Enforcement to investigate and file a charge-sheet and continue investigations, including against the named accused, such as the case against the present applicant. Therefore, the pendency of those investigations does not enure in favour of the applicant. Rather, considering his previous conduct, in furnishing fake addresses and remaining out of bounds of the investigating agencies for almost two years, necessitating the issuance of NBWs, interference with investigations is a possibil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
