9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the trial. So far as the bail of Dilip kumar Ghosh is concerned, he was allowed bail as he was the purchaser and protected under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as such the allowing the bail of Dilip kumar Ghosh @ Dilip Ghosh is on different footing. There is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal of bail, each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merit. The discretion of court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. This Court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that bail is the rule and the jail is an exception. In view of the above facts reasons and analysis, this Court finds that no case of regular bail is made out as such the prayer for the regular bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected. Bail application dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate Ms. Alka Kumari, Advocate For the E.D. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Directorate of Enforcement. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accordingly present case has been instituted as against Thirteen named accused persons and Companies including this petitioner who has been made accused at Serial No.6. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither the accused in Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 nor in ECIR Case No. 18 of 2022 which was instituted on 21.10.2022. He further submits that only on suspicion and so called confession of the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner has got no concern with the entire prosecution of land in question. He further submits that the petitioner is a Government servant working at Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi as a Radiographer since last several years. According to him, the petitioner is having no criminal antecedent prior to the present case. However, subsequently, the petitioner has been implicated in two cases. 5. To strengthen the argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to Paragraph 9.6.1 of the complaint of the Directorate of Enforcement and submits that only a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs has been transferred in the acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agraph nos. 28, 29, 34, 49, 51, 52, 53. Relying on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in jail custody since 15.04.2023 and 17 months period have already elapsed and no witnesses have been examined and in the light of the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (Supra), the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. On the same point, he further relied in the case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement arising out of SLP (Criminal) Criminal No. 10778 of 2024 and he placed reliance on paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Manish Sisodia s Case has been considered in paragraph nos. 11 and 12 and in paragraph 13 it has been held that bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. In view of that observation Kalvakuntla Kavitha (Supra) has been provided regular bail and the case of the petitioner is on identical footing as such the regular bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. He further relied in the case of Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1945 relied on paragraph 18 which is quoted here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Section 19 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has not been considered. And the grounds of arrest have not been disclosed to the petitioner as such on that ground the petitioner deserves regular bail. On these grounds, he submits that the regular bail may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 8. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement draws the attention of the Court to the complaint particularly paragraph 3.6 and submits that it has come that there were ongoing litigations regarding the possession of the property between Army and purported claimant Jayant Carnard who had sold the land to 14 persons by way of 16 deeds on strength of the order obtained from the High Court of Jharkhand by concealing and manipulating facts. It has further revealed that Prem Prakash is very close to Mr. Chhavi Ranjan, the Ex-deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and Amit Kumar Agarwal, who was very influential person in Ranchi. In connivance with Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Office and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favorable report from Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y likelihood that the trial will be concluded very soon. In view of that a regular bail may kindly be rejected. 9. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel of the parties, the Court has gone through the material on records including the complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. In paragraph 9.6.1 of the complaint it has come that though the consideration amount was declared to the tune of Rs. 7 crores only one payment amounting Rs. 25 lakhs made into the account of Pradip Bagchi and rest of the declared payment of Rs. 6.75 crores was sham. The amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was received by accused Pradip Bagchi in his State Bank of India account on 6.10.2021. The scrutiny of bank account of Pradip Bagchi has revealed that Rs. 25 lakhs received by him and Rs. 15 lakhs was transferred to Imtiaz Ahmad on 11.10.2021 in his HDFC bank account which was opened on 24.09.2021. Another payment amounting to Rs. 9.50 lakhs was paid by Pradip Bagchi to Imtiaz Ahmad on 28.10.2022. It has been further disclosed that Imtiaz Ahmad is a part of an organized racket habitually involved in making fake deeds of property falsification of original records available at Circle Offices and oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Manish Sisodiya (Supra ) is concerned, this Court is in agreement that the jail is an exception and the bail is rule that is the consideration in these cases by the Hon ble Supreme Court. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that in 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 facts of the present case are otherwise. In this case, there is no assurance to the Court by the Directorate of Enforcement that it will be concluded very soon. It has been informed at Bar by the learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement that very soon the trial will be concluded. Thus, if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period or within a reasonable time, the case of Manish Sidsodia may help the petitioner. So far as the case of the Kalvakuntla Kavitha (supra) is concerned the consideration was of proviso of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which speaks t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant; (iv) that the accused persons had full knowledge of the transaction, inasmuch as though the sale deed was executed in favor of Punit Bhargava through accused Rajesh Rai on 06.02.2021, payment was made on 12.02.2021 and that only 25 lakh was paid to Rajesh Rai and mutation was done and thereafter sold to Bishnu Agarwal and all payments were received by Punit Bhargava; (v) that no subsequent payments were to be made further, as according to the prosecution, all concerned knew that the deeds were fake, and (vi) that Bishnu Agarwal made the payment in the month of April and June 2021, but the registration was done on 1st April, 2021 and as such the registration was done before consideration. 35. The appellant was not named in FIR No. 399 of 2023. It appears from the complaint of the respondent- Enforcement Directorate at para 6 that Afshar Ali, Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmad were arrested on 14.04.2023 in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 though in the summary of the statements at para 8.12 it is mentioned that Afshar Ali was arrested on 14.04.2023 read with prayer (c) of the complaint it appears that the arrest that is referred to in para 8.12 is the arrest in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022. 36. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Moreover, there is no material placed on record to show as to on what basis it is claimed that the beneficial interest in M/s Jamini Enterprises lies with the appellant. Hence, the statements relied upon do not prima facie make out a case of money laundering against the appellant. 11. In the paragraph no. 39 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon ble Supreme Court has found the statement of Afshar Ali (the petitioner) does not prima facie indicate anything about the role of Prem Pakash. Considering that aspect Prem Pakash was granted bail. In view of paragraphs 35 and 36 (supra) the case of the present petitioner is further distinguishable with the fact of Prem Prakash as such the case of Prem Prakash is further not helping the petitioner. 12. So far as the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is concerned the Court is not accepting the said argument as at the time of remand the petitioner has not complained that the ground of remand has not been served and this plea is being taken after 17 months. Initially it was not challenged by way of filing petition. 13. In the identical situatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. 22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and on its own merits. The discretion of the court has to be exercised judiciously and not in an arbitrary manner. At this stage itself, it is necessary for us to indicate that we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Solicitor General that flight risk of economic offenders should be looked at as a national phenomenon and be dealt with in that manner merely because certain other offenders have flown out of the country. The same ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
