9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emanded to custody of respondent No.2 or to judicial custody as on the specific dates on which the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) were passed and their present confinement cannot be held to be invalidated on the ground that the orders detaining them in custody initially were illegal - no ground has been made out for setting aside the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively as passed by learned Duty/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby the petitioners have been remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody on 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023. On perusal of the material placed on record, it has been revealed that the allegations as levelled against Judicial Officer namely, Mr. Sudhir Parmar who is alleged to have taken undue favours from the present petitioners and other key persons of M3M group of companies and Managing Director of IREO company are being investigated by respondent No.2. The same are quite serious in nature. Keeping in view the gravity of the same, the prayer as made by the petitioners for grant of release from custody at this stage does not deserve to be accepted. Petition dismissed. - Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Managing Director-Vice Chairman of these companies. The said Mr. Lalit Goyal was arrested on 16.11.2021. His statements were recorded several times during the course of investigation and he was booked under the provisions of PMLA. It was revealed during the course of investigation that huge amount of money was diverted to M3M group of companies by IREO group companies after layering of funds and all the companies through which funds were routed by IREO group to M3M group were shell companies owned/controlled/managed by M3M group and its controller only. The involvement of M3M group in money laundering with Mr. Lalit Goyal of IREO group was revealed. The company M/s M3M India Limited was founded by the petitioner Basant Bansal and one Roop Kumar Bansal and the petitioner Pankaj Bansal was also a Director in this group of companies. Sh. Lalit Goyal had been arrested and was subsequently given concession of bail. During the course of investigation, the present petitioners were also found involved in laundering the money diverted by IREO group of companies and were booked along with accused Roop Bansal. They secured concession of anticipatory bail from High Court of Delhi. 2. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, it was vehemently argued that the impugned orders as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula thereby remanding to the petitioners to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody were liable to be set aside. 4. The petitioners further prayed for their release on bail as interim/ad interim measure. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were in custody since 15.06.2023. Their arrest was in violations of the provisions of Constitution of India. The investigation was likely to take time. The respondent No.2 had failed to disclose as to why the further custody of the petitioners was required. Nothing incriminating was discovered from them. Hence, prayer has been made for releasing them from custody during the investigation. 5. Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General of India representing the respondents had argued at the outset that since the relief claimed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 19 (1) of the PMLA had already been dismissed on 20.07.2023 by this Court, therefore, the remaining reliefs as claimed by the petitioners could not be enter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the petitioners were managing the affairs of M3M group of companies being Managing Director/Directors/founders. He argued that it had also come in the investigation conducted so far by respondent No.2 that the petitioners in connivance with Mr. Lalit Goyal and Mr. Roop Bansal who were accused before CBI Court, Panchkula had bribed Mr. Sudhir Parmar, CBI Judge and his nephew by giving undue favours to them and in order to seek favourable orders from the CBI Court in respect of the previous FIR in which the petitioners and above named Mr. Lalit Goyal and Mr. Roop Bansal were cited as accused. Therefore, he strenuously argued that no case for release of the petitioners from custody was made out. 7. We have given due deliberations to the contentions raised by both sides. In our opinion, the petitioners have failed to make out any case to show as to how orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) whereby they had been remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody were liable to be set aside. A perusal of these orders rather reveals that the petitioners had been validly remanded to custody by passing detailed orders by the concerned Court. The act of directing r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
