9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 936X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viders including the present petitioner used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram). The investigation further disclosed that Mukesh Mittal contacted Ram Prakash Bhatia, who is engaged in the illegal business of providing entries in lieu of commission for taking the entries into the bank account of Genda Ram. Subsequently, Ram Prakash Bhatia provided those entries with the help of his associate and present petitioner - The petitioner is the mastermind behind using the bank accounts for the purpose of laundering/routing of funds which makes it established that the petitioner is a key person of the nexus, which provides entries in lieu of commission and, hence, he was involved in the offence of money laundering of proceeds of crime of Veerendra Kumar Ram. When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further, bail is the rule and jail i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hedpur and subsequently Final Report has been submitted by the ACB, Jamshedpur bearing No.01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons i.e. Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. He then submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has exceeded its jurisdiction in arraigning the petitioner as an accused in the present case when he cannot even be remotely linked to the predicate offence in the present case arising out of FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, which was registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur. He submitted that the said FIR was registered against Suresh Prasad Verma, which is not even remotely connected to the petitioner. He also submitted that the co-accused, namely, Alok Ranjan has been charged only for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the said FIR case and in view of that, the present petitioner has no nexus with the alleged recovery of money from the house of Surendra Prasad Verma, who is the main accused in the said FIR. He submitted that even if the prosecution complaint is read in its entirety, prima fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'ble Supreme Court in light of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61 . He submitted that interim relief of no arrest has been granted in favour of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Mittal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2615 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3928 of 2024 vide order dated 22.03.2024. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SCC 929 and referred paragraph 88 of the said judgment and submitted that the Court is not required to weigh evidence to find the guilt of the accused, which is of course the work of the trial court, as has been held therein. He submitted that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Manish Sisodia on the ground of delay in trial in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024. He also submitted that Prem Prakash has been granted bail i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that in the year 2022, Ram Prakash Bhatia gave him bank accounts and asked him to provide entries therein against the cash provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia. He further stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship and one individual, accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the fact that out of these four bank accounts, three were opened on the basis of forged identity cards. He also stated that he transferred Rs.3.52 Crores, which was proceeds of crime acquired by Veerendra Kumar Ram through commission from the balance which were already available with the four bank accounts on the instructions of Ram Prakash Bhatia and when asked about the source of such balance he stated that these funds were deposited by the farmers in lieu of purchasing crates, which he was supposed to give to crate manufacturers i.e. seller of such crates. He used to receive cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia in short duration after giving RTGS entries and then such cash was given to crate manufacturer i.e. seller of such crates. The whole findings of investigation regarding purchase-sale of crates and transfer of fun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal funds of Rs.3.52 Crores have been transferred in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and operated by Harish Yadav on instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and that has come in the complaint case. The petitioner has stated in his statement that for entries purpose, he asked Tara Chand to provide some bank accounts for which he would provide Tara Chand a handsome amount. The petitioner has further stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship and one individual accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the fact that out of those four bank accounts, three were opened on the basis of forged identity cards. Thus, modus operandi was formulated by Veerendra Kumar Ram, Tara Chand and the present petitioner. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337 has come up with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing with cases involving economic offences. The principles that were summarized in this judgment is extracted hereunder: 21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein that rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act. 9. Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of entry providers including the present petitioner used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram). The investigation further disclosed that Mukesh Mittal contacted Ram Prakash Bhatia, who is engaged in the illegal business of providing entries in lieu of commission for taking the entries into the bank account of Genda Ram. Subsequently, Ram Prakash Bhatia provided those entries with the help of his associate and present peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Manish Sidsodia in the earlier the Directorate of Enforcement had informed the Hon ble Supreme Court that within the stipulated period the trial will be concluded however the trial was not concluded and Sidsodia was behind bar since 17 months and on these grounds Manish Sisodia was granted bail by Hon ble Supreme Court. The fact in the present case is otherwise. 16. When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further, bail is the rule and jail is an exception but competing forces need to be carefully measured before enlarging the accused on bail. Socio economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail since socio economic offences have deep-rooted conspiracies affecting moral fibre of society and causing irreparable harm. Moreover, investigating agency was in process of expediting the trial. A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. Paragraphs 8 to 15 of the said judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned counsel, it should be noted that there is no straitjacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, places responsibility upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness before a person's liberty is abridged. Although bail is the rule and jail is an exception is well established in our jurisprudence, we have to measure competing forces present in facts and circumstances of each case before enlarging a person on bail. 12. We are of the considered opinion that Sanjay Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L S) 397], as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is distinguishable from the case at hand as the charges in that case carried a maximum punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. In the present case, charge-sheet has been submitted, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
