9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 750X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said to be amount of proceed of crime and his submission that allegations made by the respondent that the present applicant has received cash of Rs. 61.02 lacs over the above sale proceeds, which were then deposited into his bank account, is not proceed of crime, cannot be prima facie considered for releasing the applicant on bail as the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 has admitted that Mr. Anurag Chaurasia and Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia have purchased the land and the sale proceeds of the firm was Rs. 2,53,59,842/- and he was working as Supervisor in the firm and in the further statement, he has admitted that he will submit invoice related to sale proceeds of Rs. 61,02,550/- but he has stated that he has no sale receipt as recorded on 26.10.2022. Taking into consideration the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, wherein he has stated that the excess amount of Rs. 61.02 lacs as proceed of sale of fruits but this was denied by one Chandrashekhar Sinha in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 wherein he has stated that the bill produced by the present applicant is bogus. From these statements, it is q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iya and the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari. It is also case of the prosecution that object of Suryakant Tiwari to tamper and destroy the important documents as well as electronic gadgets and Suryakant Tiwari along with his brother, Rajnikant Tiwari and his associates Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh, Moinuddin Quaraishi, Nikhil Chandrakar, Roshan Singh and others were involved in a criminal conspiracy to run a parallel system of collecting illegal levy on coal and were doing illegal and unaccounted cash movement as per instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. All the above mentioned associates of Suryakant Tiwari had admitted in their statements recorded before the Income Tax officials that they were doing the illegal levy collection on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari. The proceeds received from the above referred to action were being used for taking undue advantage and to influence public servants by corrupt and illegal means and by exercise of personal influence. 4. The role of the present applicant is that after verifying the bank account of present applicant and his family member, it was found that huge cash deposits were made in the bank account of seller just prior to registry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on account of his refusal to make untrue statement, he was arrested on 23.01.2023. 6. He would further submit that from bare perusal of the complaint, it is quite vivid that the applicant is neither involved in schedule offence nor he is involved with the alleged proceeds of crime. He would further submit that condition as enumerated under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail, is satisfied. He would further submit that the respondent authorities have acted in violation of the law laid down by Hon ble the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary others Vs. Union of India others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and would refer to paragraph 88 of the said judgment. He would further submit that the applicant is not a flight risk and there is no apprehension that he will plea or evade the process of law. He would further submit that the applicant has appeared as and when summons were issued and thus he joined the investigation. Lastly he would submit that the applicant is in jail since eight moths and trial may take more longer time for its final disposal, hence, he would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 7. To substantiate his submission, learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejection of the bail application. 9. To substantiate his submission, he would also refer to the judgment in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439, Anirudh Kamal Shukla Vs. Union of India through Assistant Director Directorateof Enforcement (Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under 438 Cr.P.C. No. 307/2022), State of Gujrat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, reported in Air 1987 SC 1321, Mohd. Arif Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, BLAPL No. 2607/2020 (decided on 13.07.2020), reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Ors 544, Aruna Chadha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5969, Chandrawati Vs. State of U.P., reported in 1992 CriLJ 3634, Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2012) 10 SCALE 237, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M. Gopal Reddy (Criminal Appeal No. 534/2023), Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. V.C. Mohan (Criminal Appeal No. 21/2022) Pooja Singhal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (B.A. No. 8937/2022). 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 11. Before coming to the factual matri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is also brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent in the counter affidavit that the documents collected would prima facie disclose that all the accused have committed acts of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act and the petitioners, during police custody also, did not cooperate with them and despite the complaint has been filed, further investigation is also in progress. Even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7563-7565 of 2021, the respondent submitted that the petitioners are not co-operating during the investigation. Even before this court the learned Special Pubic Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners never co-operated for the investigation and therefore, the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special Pubic Prosecutor that even after the registration of the criminal complaint against the petitioners, they have indirectly started new Companies by using other names. 19. In view of the past conduct of the petitioners, this court does not believe that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money- laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on grantin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 2002 is till going on. 7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove. 15. Again Hon ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. / 2023) (decided on 30.10.2023) has held at paragraph 26 which is as under:- 26. However, we are also concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant Manish Sisodia. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 48 , the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant and the respondent to substantiate their respective stands. 17. The submission made by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that the applicant has sold the property to Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia for consideration of Rs. 2.53 crore through registered sale-deed and through banking channels, which cannot be said to be amount of proceed of crime and his submission that allegations made by the respondent that the present applicant has received cash of Rs. 61.02 lacs over the above sale proceeds, which were then deposited into his bank account, is not proceed of crime, cannot be prima facie considered for releasing the applicant on bail as the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 has admitted that Mr. Anurag Chaurasia and Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia have purchased the land and the sale proceeds of the firm was Rs. 2,53,59,842/- and he was working as Supervisor in the firm and in the further statement, he has admitted that he will submit invoice related to sale proceeds of Rs. 61,02,550/- but he has stated that he has no sale receipt as recorded on 26.10.2022. He has also admitted that he does not know the buyers/related parties and he has no c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
