9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Judge rejected the said prayer vide order dated 19th May, 2022. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the IGP, CID West Bengal vide letter dated 30th September, 2014 had forwarded two FIRs on the basis of which Durgapur P.S Case No.779 of 2013 dated 4th October, 2013 under Sections 420/406/506/34 of the IPC against the Chairman Rose Valley Real Estate and Construction Limited and others and Tarakeswar P.S Case No.53 of 2014 dated 12th March, 2014 under Sections 420/468/471/120B of the IPC against one Ravi Shankar Roy and others, associated with a company in the name and style of M/s Rose Valley Chain Marketing System Limited. Subsequently, two more FIRs in connection with Baguiati P.S Case No.623/2014 dated 21st October, 2014 and 626/2014 dated 22nd October, 2014 both under Sections 420/406 of the IPC against Rose Valley Group of Industries, Baguiati Branch were also collected from the police. All the above mentioned cases revealed that Rose Valley Group of Companies illegally and fraudulently collected money from general public with the intention to cheat them by making false promise of high returns on their investment and had not made repayment of the matu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecember, 2018. It is stated by the petitioner that he had been arrested on 25th March, 2015 in connection with ML Case No.1 of 2015 and had been remanded to the custody of Enforcement Directorate till 31st March, 2015. Thereafter, he was remanded to judicial custody, since then he is in judicial custody without any break. The petitioner was shown arrested in ML Case No.2 of 2018 on 10th August, 2018 and since then he has been languishing in custody for a continues period of more than four years, while maximum period of sentence for the offence under Section 4 of the PMLA is seven years. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide order dated 6th April, 2022 the learned trial judge allowed petitioner's application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released him on bail in connection with ML Case No.3 of 2015. Under such circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is entitled to statutory bail under the provision of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The Enforcement Directorate has filed a written report through its learned Advocate in compliance of the order passed by a Coordinate Bench on 29th September, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etired) D.K.Seth. He was also guilty for using mobile phones from the correctional home to the officials of M/s Chocolate Pvt. Ltd, his relatives to instruct them to divert the funds and infrastructure of the company for the personal use of him and his family members. It is further contended by the Enforcement Directorate that the assets involved in ML Case No.3 of 2015 and ML Case No.2/2018 are the same and identical. It is further stated that the petitioner previously on 19th May, 2022 filed an application under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court. From the order of the trial court it is absolutely clear that the petitioner by one pretext or the other delayed the trial of the case. It is also submitted on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate that if he is released on bail he may terrorize and instill fear in the mind of the investors/complainant either himself or through his agents. The paragraph 7.6 of the said report contains a detailed chart showing how the petitioner delayed trial of ML Case No.2 of 2018. 5. Mr. Sabysachi Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner at the outset submits that the opposite party refers to the various steps ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detained in prison beyond the maximum period provided under Section 436-A. 6. We, accordingly, direct that jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall hold one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for two months commencing from 1-10-2014 for the purposes of effective implementation of Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its sittings in jail, the above judicial officers shall identify the undertrial prisoners who have completed half period of the maximum period or maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under the law and after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 436-A pass an appropriate order in jail itself for release of such undertrial prisoners who fulfil the requirement of Section 436-A for their release immediately. Such jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Sessions Judge shall submit the report of each of such sittings to the Registrar General of the High Court and at the end of two months, the Registrar General of each High Court shall submit the report to the Secretary General of this Court without any delay. To facilitate compliance with the above order, we direct the Jail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecial Judge (PMLA) Court fixed the matter for consideration of charge on several occasions however the same could not be proceeded due to dilatory tactics adopted by the different accused persons in the case. At this ground the Coordinate Bench refused to extend the benefit of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C to the petitioner. Section 436A runs thus:- "436 A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained:- Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties; Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without sureties; Provided further that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uction Ltd. and Rose Valley Hotels Entertainment Ltd. are properly represented by its Chairman Goutam Kundu, who is regularly produced before this Court in respect of the present case as well as in respect of other cases pending against him. When Mr. Kundu knows everything about the complaint lodged against him personally as well as his company which were run under his Chairmanship, then there will be no impediment or there may not any bar if summons be received by Gautam Kundu on behalf or Rose Valley Real Estate Construction Ltd. and Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Ltd. Accordingly the prosecution was directed to serve the summons including the complaint and other documents to Gautam kundu when he will be produced before the Spl. Court and Mr. Kundu was directed accordingly to receive the summons in respect of both Rose Valley Real Estate Construction Ltd. and Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Ltd. 05.09.2018 The Court received unserved copy of summons in respect of two companies namely Rose Valley Real Estate Construction Ltd. and Rose Valley Hotels & Entertainment Ltd. 13.09.2018 Sh. Gautam Kundu filed the bail application. However, it was submitted by his advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Ld. Special Court. 18.04.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Misc application filed on behalf of another accused person. 24.04.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Hearing took place on prayer of another accused person. 10.05.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Misc application filed on behalf of another accused person. 30.05.2019 Gautam Kundu was not produced since he was reported to be admitted to hospital of correctional home. 13.06.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. The Ld. Court called investigation Report. 27.06.2019 Hearing adjourned for 10.07.2019. 10.07.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Misc application filed by another person. Matter fixed for 11.07.2019 for hearing on petition. The date 25.07.2019 fixed for production. 25.07.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Misc application filed by another accused. 08.08.2019 Gautam Kundu was. The Ld. Court was apprised about the progress of investigation and the Court called a report. 28.08.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Upon perusing the report, the court noted its satisfaction with investigation. 11.09.2019 Gautam Kundu was produced. Matter was adjourned for 07.11.2019 for production of accused person. 07.11.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 021 Gautam Kundu was not produced. Misc application filed by another accused person. Matter was adjourned. 26.08.2021 Gautam Kundu was not produced. Advocate of another accused sought adjournment which was allowed. 10.01.2022 Gautam Kundu was not produced. Matter was adjourned. 16.02.2022 Gautam Kundu was produced. Hearing on another accused took place. The Ld. Court observed that it appears from the case records till now the copies are not supplied/accepted by Gautam Kundu. The matter was adjourned for 22.03.2022 for verification of documents and supplies of copies to Gautam Kundu, if he declined to accept the copies u/s 207 of the Crpc, necessary order shall be passed. 22.03.2022 Gautam Kundu was not produced. Gautam Kundu received copies u/s 207 of CrPC. Misc application filed by another accused person. 22.04.2022 Gautam Kundu was produced. Application u/s 436A of CrPC filed by Gautam Kundu 28.04.2022 Haring on application u/s 436A of CrPC filed by Gautam Kundu took place. 19.05.2022 Bail application of Gautam Kundu was rejected. 17.06.2022 Gautam Kundu was produced. Matter was adjourned since the regular Presiding Officer retired. 13. On careful perus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
