9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... einafter referred to as "GIPL") and its promoter Mr. Sanjay Bhati, Chief Managing Director and others introduced / floated a scheme on 01.08.2017 at Khurpatal in Nainital in the name and style of BIKEBOT. Initially they had asked the investors to bring in commercial two-wheelers vehicle whereupon rent was fixed as Rs.459/- but later on they changed their scheme and decided to procure their own branded bikes and collect money in the company account. Accordingly they floated BIKEBOT scheme informing that the said company has initiated a bike-taxi service similar to OLA and UBER taxies and people can invest in the scheme and get assured monthly returns / income up to 12 months by paying Rs. 62,100/- per bike and in lieu of the said investment, the investor would get Rs. 9765/- per month up to 12 months. It was also assured that if anyone invests in three, five or seven bikes, would get bonus of Rs. 4590/-, Rs. 9180/- and Rs. 13,770/- respectively and after expiry of twelve month the bike would become the property of GIPL company. The agreements with investors in this regard were executed by Mr. Sanjay Bhati (Managing Director of GIPL Company). On the assurance of GIPL company, its pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Axle Energy Pvt. Ltd., M/s Pantel Mobality Health Private Ltd, Satendra Singh Bhasin Enfotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vijay Kumar Sharma and M/s Noble Buildtech LLP. (iii) The second supplementary complaint dated 25.07.2023 under Section 45 read with Section 70 of PMLA for the offence under Section ¾ of the PMLA, 2002 was filed against accused persons, namely, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma and M/s Nobel Buildtech LLP. (iv) The third supplementary complaint dated 18.09.2023 under Section 45 read with Section 70 of PMLA for the offence under Section ¾ of the PMLA, 2002 was filed against 07 accused persons including the applicant, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Shah, M/s Saha Infratech Private Ltd., Wasiq Azad, Shariq Azad, Dinesh Singh Gujjar alias Dinesh Kumar Singh (applicant), Smt. Meena Anand and Narendra Singh Sisodia. 3.3-The instant case is related to third supplementary complaint dated 18.09.2023, in which, case of the Enforcement Directorate against the present applicant-Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar is that investors fund collected through BIKEBOT scam in the accounts of GIPL was transferred to several persons and entities. One such perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 3,15,54,250/- to Dhirendra Pal Solanki through his company and wife in the month of August, 2010 to May, 2012, namely, DSM Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 20,00,0000/- on 03.08.2010), Suvidha Infracom Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 50,00,000/- on 12.03.2011 and Rs. 50,00,000/- on 19.05.2011), DSM Infracom Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 20,00,000/- on 30.06.2011, Rs. 90,00,000/- on 23.11.2011 and Rs. 15,00,000/- on 07.05.2012) and Madhu Solanki (Rs. 50,00,000/- on 12.04.2012) and contract work bill of Rs. 20,75,000/- paid on 20.09.2021, out of which, till date amount of Rs. 3,14,54,250/- has been returned by Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki in the same bank account of the applicant between November, 2011 and January, 2012 and from November, 2020 to January, 2022. An amount of Rs. 1 lac is still due upon Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki. (4.7) It is also pointed out that at the time of giving loan by the applicant to Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki, the BIKEBOT scheme was not in existence. (4.8) So far as receiving an amount of Rs. 1.76 crores by the applicant Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dinesh Gujjar from Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki is concerned, it is submitted that Dhirendra Pal Solanki in his statement has also admitted that in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicant has no knowledge of the source of fund transferred by Dhirendra Pal Solanki in his account while repaying the loan given by the applicant. (4.11) The allegation against the applicant that he has received Rs. 5.23 crores in cash from Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki is wholly false and fabricated allegation with a view to enhance the gravity of offence against the applicant while there is no corroborative evidence in support of said allegation. (4.12) So far as the details of cash amount as disclosed in table no. 13 of para no. 7.10.4(e) is concerned, it is argued that since 03.04.2007, total Rs. 12,05,53,250/- in cash has credited in six bank accounts of the applicant and two bank accounts of Smt. Rajesh Singh wife of the applicant but the Enforcement Directorate is not able to specify any single cash transaction in the account of the applicant to establish that this is the money which was given by Dhirendra Pal Solanki, therefore ED has come up with a stand that since the applicant and his Chartered Accountant did not explain the cash transactions properly, hence, it shall be presumed that the said amount was given by Dhirendra Pal Solanki to the applicant. (4.13) Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received Rs. 5.23 crores in cash from Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki on the assurance that investigation against him by ED officials will be closed. During investigation neither applicant nor his Chartered Accountant has given satisfactory reply about the source of cash amount deposited in the account of the applicant, therefore on the basis of statement of Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki, it shall be presumed that applicant has received cash amount from Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki. It is further submitted that on 17.7.2023 Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki had made a complaint against the applicant Dinesh Singh Gujjar stating inter-alia that he had already paid Rs. seven crores to the applicant to settle his case with ED officials but again applicant is pressurizing him to give Rs. 2 crore more for settlement of his on going investigation in BIKEBOT case against him showing him fear that upon failure to do so, Enforcement Directorate shall arrest him and his family members on his instructions. Regarding the plea of loan as submitted on behalf of the applicant, learned counsel for the ED referring the statement of Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki submitted that the cash amount Rs. 4,95,00,000/- received by M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of Rs. 17,94,50,000/- was transferred from the account of G.I.P.L. and has been credited in four accounts of Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki but from those four accounts, no amount has been transferred by Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki in the account No. 31232418582 of applicant-Dinesh Kumar Singh @ Dingh Gujjar. So far as allegation against the applicant that he had received Rs. 5.23 crores in cash from Mr. Dhirendra Pal Solanki is concerned, there is no corroborative material to establish that any cash amount allegedly given by Dhirendra Pal Solanki has been deposited in the account of the applicant except the presumption drawn against the applicant. I also find that accused Manoj Kumar Tyagi and Meena Anand have been granted bail, whereas Vijendra Singh, Mohd. Wasiq Azad, Mohd. Shariq Azad and Narendra Singh Sisodia, have been granted anticipatory bail as noted above and the said bail orders or anticipatory bail orders have not been challenged by the Enforcement Directorate. 8-So far as the twin conditions as provided in Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is concerned, it is well settled that Court is not required to record a positive finding that accused has not committed an offence un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etention period, present status of trial of the applicant, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as noted above and the fact that there is no apprehension of absconding the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed. 11-Let the applicant-Dinesh Singh Gujjar alias Dinesh Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) That the applicant shall cooperate with the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity. (iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
