9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Not only the above, neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor counsel for the E.D. has shown any order to show that the stay order staying the proceedings of the predicate offence has been vacated, rather those proceedings of the predicate offence have been stayed since 07.12.2018 i.e. more than four years and three months, so considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in its entirety, more particularly the fact that the present applicant is on interim bail since 15.11.2019 in this case granted by the Apex Court and there is no adverse report of misusing the liberty or flouting any condition of bail by the present applicant, besides, there was neither a flight risk, nor would he tamper with the evidence nor is influencing the trial proceedings, it is clear that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied in the present case. It is not found proper to send the applicant to the judicial custody again - bail application allowed subject to conditions imposed. - Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4044 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 13-3-2023 - Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. For the Applicant : Purnendu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, could not explain. However, presently, the applicant is out of jail pursuant to the interim bail having been granted by the Apex Court. The aforesaid proceedings of the E.D. were dependent upon the predicate offence wherein the CBI has filed the FIR and charge sheet. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the CBI has lodged FIRs No.RC-3(A)/2015, CBI/STF Delhi and RC-4 (A)/2015, CBI/STF Delhi. In RC-4 (A)/2015, CBI/STF Delhi, the E.D. had filed a Complaint Case No.13 of 2017 arising out of ECIR No.04/PMLA/2015 against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. In the aforesaid RC-04 (A)/2015, CBI/STF Delhi, the Apex Court has granted bail to the present applicant on 25.10.2017 in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6273/2017, Yadav Singh Vs. Union of India Anr., the order has been enclosed as Annexure No.SA-3 of the second supplementary affidavit dated 22.10.2019. For the convenience, the order dated 25.10.2017 is being reproduced herein below:- Leave granted. The appellant is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only), if not required to be detained in any other case on the following condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on bail. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant remained in jail for more than two years and has cooperated with the investigation in the predicate offence and in the case registered by the Enforcement Directorate as the various FIRs/RCs/ECIRs have been registered in the year 2015 and the present applicant has been arrested on 04.11.2017 in the present case. However, he has been arrested on 27.02.2017 in another matter of E.D. He has further submitted that the proceedings of Enforcement Directorate under various offences of PMLA are dependent upon the proceedings of the predicate offence and the proceedings in the predicate offence have been stayed by the Apex Court, therefore, there would be no purpose served if the present applicant is again sent to the jail particularly in view of the fact that after getting interim bail from the Apex Court, he has not misused that liberty and he has been attending the proceedings emanated from the alleged offences under PMLA. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant towards the conclusion being drawn by the Apex Court in para 187 (v) (d) in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his family members and in the name of Shell Companies, where they were having the beneficial interest. In income tax raids, the documents, jewellery and cash were seized from their house and huge assets were found. There was great difference in between income from his known source and the value of properties found during investigation, the accused/applicant is found in possession of assets to the tune of Rs.19.60 Crore approximately, out of which Rs.11.90 Crore approximately the accused could not account for. 13. During the course of investigation, the existence of one PGP Trust also came into light. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant has argued that the accused/applicant is not named in any posts, transactions and affairs of the Trust, whereas, as per E.D., the collected documentary evidence and oral evidence of the persons connected with the Trust, it has been found that the accused/applicant was the actual person, who created the Trust and managing the affairs/ transactions of the Trust behind the curtain. Apparently, the management and transactions of the Trust were being performed by the Chartered Accountant of Yadav Singh including his wife, close relatives and as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ail of the accused applicant. Therefore, bail application of the present applicant may be rejected. 17. However, on being confronted that as to whether after getting interim bail in the same case from the Apex Court on 15.11.2019 the present applicant has misused the liberty influencing the witness or material or has avoided the proceedings of trial court or has avoided any process of law in last more than three years, learned counsels for the opposite parties have stated that there is no adverse report to that effect against the present applicant but being accused of the offence of PMLA, he is not entitled for bail. 18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. Before adverting to the relevant facts and circumstances of the issue in question, I would like to refer the orders of the Apex Court dated 25.10.2017 (supra) whereby bail was granted to the present applicant in the matter of E.D.; vide order dated 07.12.2018 (supra), further proceedings of the predicate offence have been stayed and the order dated 01.10.2019 (supra) whereby the present applicant has been granted bail in the predicate offence. Besides, vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reason, I am of the view that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied. Para-86 of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced herein below:- Special Acts (Category C) 86. Now we shall come to Category C. We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the directions of this Court to expedite the process and also a stricter compliance of Section 309 of the Code. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and large man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
