9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PCA, 1988'). The petitioners, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were arrayed as co-accused on the premise that they were intentionally aiding the public servant for projecting his movable assets as their own assets, by virtue of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC, 1860'). The Charge-Sheet has been filed by the CBI against the co-accused, Mr. Satyendar Jain and other accused persons including the petitioners, for the offence under Section 13 (1) (e) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Subsequently, the ECIR bearing No. ECIR/HQ/14/2017 has been registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Mr. Satyendar Jain and others. 4. The petitioners, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Vaibhav Jain were arrested on 30.06.2022. Mr. Ankush Jain was remanded to judicial custody on 06.07.2022 and Mr. Vaibhav Jain was remanded to judicial custody on 11.07.2022. It is claimed by them that in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners to get bail under Section 167 (2) of Cr.P.C., filed incomplete Complaint against them on 27.07.2022 while further investigations were still pending and are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Investigating Agency is under a constitutional duty to conclude the investigations and file the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to default bail. Reliance has been made Rakesh Kumar Paul vs. State of Assam, (2017) 15 SCC 67; Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616; M. Ravindran vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2021) 2 SCC 485; Ashok Wunilal Main & Anr. vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement. Prayer is thus made that the petitioner be admitted to bail. 8. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to release on default bail as is claimed by them. Preliminary objection is taken that the present Petition is not maintainable as the learned Special Judge has duly considered all the contentions in this regard and rejected them by way of speaking Order dated 16.01.2023. It was observed that the findings in the Complaint had attained finality and there was no change of circumstances insofar as the default Bail Application was concerned. Furthermore, the applicants themselves have admitted that the investigations qua them, is comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of crime to the tune of Rs. 4,81,16,435/- as untainted in the mode and manner as explained above and detailed in the prosecution Complaint filed under Section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002. The Regular Bail of Mr. Ankush Jain has already been dismissed vide Order dated 17.12.2022. 12. The role of Mr. Vaibhav Jain in the prosecution Complaint has detailed that in his 'IDS, 2016' he declared undisclosed income of Rs.8.6 Crores including Rs. 1,53,61,166/- during the check period from 2010-11 to 2015-16, in order to save and shield Mr. Satyendar Kumar Jain, thereby concealing the true nature of proceeds of crime. He also prepared back dated documents with the help of Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr. Ankush Jain and Mr. Jagdish Prasad Jain with regard to his Directorship M/s Akinchan Developers Pvt. Ltd, Paryas Infosolution Pvt. Ltd., M/s Manglayatan Projects Pvt. Ltd and Indo Metalimpex Pvt. Ltd. by becoming Directors of the aforesaid Companies from back date for showing his IDS declaration as genuine. The income sought to be disclosed by the petitioner, belonged to Mr. Satyendar Kumar Jain and their rejection of IDS on this ground has been upheld by the learned Special Court and confirmed by the Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Abu Bakr Yafai vs. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 6 SCC 308; Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410. 18. On merits, all the averments made in the Bail Petitions, are refuted and it is asserted that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. 19. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, have argued essentially on the same lines as stated in their respective Applications and Reply. 20. Submissions heard and record perused. 21. Admittedly, ED had filed the statutory Complaint in the Court on 27.07.2022, which was within the statutory period of 60 days from the date of arrest of the petitioners. 22. Essentially the ground for default bail, which has been agitated by the petitioners, is that the Complaint filed before the Court, was incomplete in so much as with the permission of the Court, the petitioners have been asked to join the investigations. The taking of cognizance by the Ld. Special Judge cannot ipso facto lead to the conclusion that investigations are complete. 23. The cognizance of the Complaints has been taken by the Ld. Special Judge. The Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India & Ors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either vitiate the Charge-Sheet nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground of the Charge-Sheet being incomplete or not filed in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. 25. In view of the aforesaid, while it is rightly contended on behalf of the petitioner that mere cognizance does not prevent the Court to consider whether all the requisite material has been placed before the Court by way of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, however, the petitioner herein aside from making a claim that the investigations were not completed as not being able to demonstrate in what manner the Charge-Sheet does not disclose the commission of the offence against the petitioner. 26. The other aspect which has been contended by the Petitioners is that continuing of further investigations against the petitioners is indicative of the Complaint being incomplete. 27. To appreciate the contention so raised by the petitioners, it would be appropriate to first understand the scope of Default Bail in terms of Section 167 (2) of the Code. 28. In the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Apex Court observed that it is the duty of the Agency to complete the investigation wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angle of personal liberty and not from a purely dictionary or textual perspective. 33. The scope of Section 167 (2) of the Code as detailed in the aforesaid Judgments, is not in dispute. The core question before this Court is under what circumstances can a Complaint filed in the Court can be considered as incomplete. In the present case, the contents of the Complaint disclosed all the ingredients for commission of an offence against the accused and the cognizance is also taken, it is evident that the investigations qua the accused for disclosing the commission of the offence, is complete. There may be supplementary investigations undertaken, but the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that incidental or supportive investigations may continue by way of F.S.L. Report, which was to collect such other further details but that in itself would not take away the completeness of the Complaint in so much as the contents of the Complaint discloses all the ingredients for commission of offence. Mere supplementary evidence, which is only intended to be filed in support of the main Charge Sheet, would not make the Complaint incomplete. 34. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... details and the mobile phone call details of the petitioner, as mentioned in the Charge-Sheet were yet to be verified. It was further observed that the Charge Sheet was filed before the learned Special Judge was complete in all respects so as to the enable the learned Judge, to take cognizance of the matter. 37. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary and Others (supra) it was observed that Clause (ii) of the Explanation to Section 3 is only an enabling provision permitting to take on record material regarding further investigation against any accused person involved in respect of offence of money-laundering for which Complaint has already been filed, whether he has been named in the complaint or not. Such a provision, in fact, is a wholesome provision to ensure that no person involved in the commission of offence of money-laundering, must go unpunished. It is always open to the Authority authorised to seek permission of the Court during the trial of the Complaint in respect of which cognizance has already been taken by the Court, to bring on record further evidence which request can be dealt with by the Special Court in accordance with law keeping in mind the provisions of the 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
