ORDER

Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Central Government Counsel.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Spl. Trial (PMLA) Case No. 7 of 2020 arising out of ECIR/PTZO/01/2017 dated 14.02.2017 for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) punishable under Section 4 of the said Act in connection with Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 298/2016 for offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 467 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Prosecution case according to the informant, namely, Kunal Kumar is that the petitioner and his brother namely Ashok Kumar Goenka dishonestly and fraudulently got opened his bank accounts in Kotak Mahindra Bank and three accounts in ICICI Bank at Muzaffarpur by misusing his photographs and other documents without his knowledge and consent and again without his knowledge effected transactions worth Rs. Thirteen (13) crores from these bank accounts and he has got no manner of concern with these transactions at all. In substance, the allegation is about the misuse of his account without his knowledge. On the basis of said FIR, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has recorded an ECIR No. PTZO/01/2017 dated 14.02.2017 and initiated its investigation. Though ECIR was recorded in Feb’17 and investigation was initiated, however, the copy of such ECIR was served to the petitioner in Jan’20.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that Raj Kumar Goenka (petitioner) was doing business of Biscuit “BRISCKO” which is manufactured by Pankaj Agrawal (co-accused) of Kolkata, who also happens to be cousin of petitioner. In 2012-13, Pankaj Agrawal was selling biscuit in whole of Bihar in cash to other dealers as well and was facing issues in cash collection. So requested the petitioner to collect cash from his employees and transfer it to his companies by RTGS/NEFT. For this activity, he will pay commission @ 0.25%, which is equivalent to DD commission rate. Unaware of Income Tax implications, the petitioner agreed to this and opened bank accounts in his name, his wife’s name, his daughter’s name and also in name of his employees, namely, Kunal Kumar (Informant) of Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 298/2016 and Sri Neeraj Kumar, so that they can also be deposited Pankaj Agrawal’s cash in their bank accounts and transfer it to Sri Pankaj Agrawal. Sri Pankaj Agrawal’s employees, sometimes including Gaurav Maheshwari, used to deliver 5-10 lakhs rupees daily to Raj Kumar Goenka in Muzaffarpur. The petitioner used to deposit such amount in self/employee’ bank accounts and do RTGS to companies owned by Pankaj Agrawal. Commission @0.25% of transaction value was given by Pankaj Agrawal to Raj Kumar Goenka for such activity.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that around end of 2015, petitioner became aware of the Income Tax implications of such transactions, so immediately stopped all such transaction. In May 2016, Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) was launched by IT Department, as contained in Annexure-5 of the bail petition, where petitioner went ahead to declare all such transaction in his name, wife’s name, daughter’s name and also the transaction of accounts which were in the name of his employees, namely, Kunal Kumar (informant in Mithanpura P.S. Case No. 298/2016) and Neeraj Kumar and paid tax on such income @ 30% and penalty @50% of tax. This declaration was made on 30.09.2016, which is prior to institution of any investigation by any authority.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in December, 2016, survey was conducted at Muzaffarpur in the premises of petitioner by Income Tax Department on 22.12.2016, when the petitioner was in