9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against main accused but accounts of the applicant's company have not been attached. In view the facts and circumstances of the case, role assigned to the applicant to connect him with the present matter, comparing the same with the ingredients of the offences levelled against him in the FIRs in the present matters and also taking into consideration the settled principles of law for granting bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that it is a fit case for bail. The bail applications are allowed. - OM PRAKASH-VII, J. For the Appellant : Pushkar Mehrotra and Swetashwa Agarwal For the Respondent : G.A. JUDGMENT OM PRAKASH-VII, J. 1. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agarwal and Sri Pushkar Mehrotra, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The aforesaid bail applications have been filed by accused applicant namely Satinder Singh Bhasin in following case crime nos. and have been heard together, thus, same are being decided by a common order. The details of the bail applications are g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consideration then also applicant allotted the commercial office space in Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Private Limited to the G.I.P.L. and its sister concern as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed and same cannot be treated that the applicant was also involved in the money laundering done by M/s. G.I.P.L. and its sister concern. None of the ingredients of the offences levelled in the matter are attracted against the applicant. Amount shown to be credited in the account of the applicant by the investigating agency is also false and is based on wrong calculation. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant referred to the counter and rejoinder affidavits annexed with the application and further argued that Investigating Officer has taken into consideration those amount which was returned to M/s. G.I.P.L. M/s. G.I.P.L. has taken the possession of said commercial space and has plans to launch office therein. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant also referred to the facts of the present case as well as ingredients of the offences under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 and 409 IPC and further argued that there is no cheating on the part of the applicant with the investo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also argued that investors belonging to the scheme launched by the applicant company had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applicant was enlarged on bail in all the FIRs lodged against him with certain directions. Present matter is also of the same nature and the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in this matter also. 5. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General argued that amount said to have been paid by M/s. G.I.P.L. to the applicant's company/scheme was paid in the month of April, 2018 itself. Prayer for allotment was made through the application moved in the month of December, 2018. Thus, it clearly shows that amount deposited by the investors in Bike Boat Scheme was diverted to the applicant's companies prior to the moving of the application for allotment of the land. Referring to the application moved on behalf of M/s. G.I.P.L. for allotment of the land it was further argued that person who had applied for allotment has not signed the application nor any stamp was affixed thereon. It was further argued that two contradictory views have been taken by the applicant. Criminal Writ filed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India, (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 1 5. State of Bihar and Another Versus Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai, (2017) 13 Supreme Court Cases 751. 6. Serious Fraud Investigation Office Versus Nittin Johari and Another, (2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 165. 7. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another, (2004) 7 Supreme Court Cases 528. 8. Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 Supreme Court Cases 389. 9. Judgment dated 5.1.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8606 of 2020 (Deepti Bahal Versus State of U.P.). 10. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 4 SCC 622. 11. State of Karnataka Vs. J. Jayalalitha and others, (2017) 6 SCC 263. 12. Ramesh Chandra Nand Lal Parikh Vs. State of Gujrat and another, (2006) 1 SCC 732. 13. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited and others Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another, (2013) 1 SCC 1. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the entire record including the papers submitted by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
