9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only, and furnishing one surety for Rs. Five lacs, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court - In the alternative, the petitioner may furnish a personal bond of Rs. One lac only, and hand over to the the attesting officer, a fixed deposit(s) for Rs. One lac only, made in favour of the Trial Court. Petition allowed. - CRM-M-8102-2022 - - - Dated:- 19-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:- Mr. Sardavinder Goel, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for the respondent-ED. Mr. R.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate for respondent-CBI. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. Complaint No. Dated Pending in Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles. 5. Given the petitioner s age at the time of commission of the present offence, the previous criminal history of the petitioner is not being considered strictly at this stage as a factor for denying bail. 6. The Directorate of Enforcement s case, in nutshell is that the accused Vikram Seth operated a few bogus entities in his name and also in the name of the family members, as mentioned in the complaint, which reads as follows: - (2). Brief summary of cause of action under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The complainant submits that the condition precedent to investigate the offence of Money Laundering by the Complainant/ Directorate of Enforcement is either an FIR or a Police Report u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. or a complaint, in respect of sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, 1860 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were invoked against Sh. Vikram Seth and others. (2.3). Sh. Vikram Seth and his family members/associates in connivance with the accused bank officials cheated the Bank of Baroda, Phagwara to the tune of Rs. 21.31 crore as those 19 loans were obtained through criminal conspiracy and obtained through forgery, submission of forged documents as genuine and thereby cheated the bank and induced delivery of property as explained in para 3 of the prosecution complaint. (2.4) The loan amounts availed fraudulently through criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine were not utilized for the intended purpose and were layered by routing through accounts of various associated firms/companies and other fraudulent firms by the accused persons through a web of transactions as explained in para 7.3 of this complaint and ultimately the funds were diverted and siphoned off. Sh. Vikram Seth entered into sham business transaction with those entities which were controlled by his acquaintances and friends. In addition to the above, Sh. Vikram Seth used to canvass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under section 4 of the Act ibid. (2.10). Thus, Sh. Vikram Seth by having involved himself in the generation of the PoC to the extent of Rs. 21.26 Cr. (as explained in Paras 3.7, 3.8.4 and 3.9.3 of this prosecution complaint) and after acquiring the said PoC, by getting the PoC placed in the various accounts of entities related/controlled by him or his relatives; and by him having deployed the PoC thus layered to discharge existing loans or purchasing/acquiring property, has projected the amounts used for retiring such existing loans as untainted property has fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence of money laundering as defined in section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Other accused persons have also fulfilled all the ingredients of the offence of money laundering as defined in section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 as elaborated against their names in para 13 of this complaint. 7. As per the complaint, the specific role attributed to the petitioner Shivam Seth reads as under: - I. Bogus entities viz. M/s Goel Sales Corporation and M/s Subhash Singh Co. were operated wherein he was a partner / proprietor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rop. of M/s Subash Singh Company, Partner in M/s Goel Sales Corporation and also having availed a housing loan during 2011-12 to the extent of Rs. 2.25 Crores, by resorting to forgery and submission of forged documents as genuine, had come into possession of said Rs. 2.25 Crores by actually involving himself in the acquisition of the POCS and by integrating the same into the businesses of the said Company, Firm and housing loan, had projected the POCS as untainted. Based on the above, Sh. Shivam Seth had committed the offence of Money Laundering to the extent of Rs. 2.25 Crores in terms of Section 3 of the PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. 8. The allegations of money laundering pertain to the year 2011-2013; at that time, the petitioner's age would be around 18-20 years. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, it has been explicitly declared that Shivam was studying in college at Jallandhar and had no connection with the business's day-to-day affairs, except as explained in the later portion of the paragraph. 9. Till the time of filing of the complaint, the Enforcement Directorate chose not to arrest the accused. Only when the concerned trial Court summ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 13. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he banks where the stake of the State is more than 50%, or any of the well-established and stable private banks, with the clause of automatic renewal of principal, and the interest reverting to the linked account. Such a fixed deposit need not necessarily be made from the applicant's account. If such a fixed deposit is made in physical form, i.e., on paper, then the original receipt shall be handed over to the concerned court. If made online, its printout, countersigned by the accused, shall be given; and the depositor shall get the online liquidation disabled. The applicant shall inform the concerned branch of the bank at the earliest that it has been tendered as surety. Such information be sent either by e-mail or by post/courier about the fixed deposit, whether made on paper or in any other mode, along with its number and FIR number. After that, the applicant shall hand over such proof and endorsement to the concerned court. The trial court shall have a lien over the deposit until discharged by substitution, and in case any court takes cognizance, then such court, upon which the investigator shall hand over the deposit to such court, which shall have a lien over it up to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
