The court emphasized the importance of cooperation in the investigation and the lack of evidence of tampering or threatening, considering the nature of the alleged offence.

ORDER

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - CRL.M.A.N0. 15810/2021

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

BAIL APPLN. 3619/2021

1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case bearing ECIR No. DLZO-I/43/2021, Under Section 3 R/w Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in CC No. 17/21 titled as "Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Amrendra Dhari Singh & Others.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a charge-sheet in the form of complaint was filed by the ED wherein it was alleged that a CBI case was registered vide RC 221/2021/E/0009 on 17.05.2021 U/s 120B, 420 IPC and Sec. 13(l)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) against accused Amarendra Dhari Singh and other accused persons.

3. Accused Amarendra Dhari Singh was a Senior Vice President of M/s Jyoti Trading Corporation, at the relevant time. The accused persons named in the CBI case entered into a criminal conspiracy during 2007 to 2014 and cheated and defrauded IFFCO and Indian Potash Limited. (IPL), the share holders of those entities and the Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilizers and other materials for fertilizer production at inflated prices and claimed higher subsidy from Government of India causing loss of several crores of rupees. They allegedly siphoned off the commission received from the suppliers through a complex web of fake commercial transactions through multiple companies owned by the accused persons, registered outside India in order to camouflage the fraudulent transactions.

4. It is claimed that IFFCO set up its 100% subsidiary namely M/s Kisan International Trading FZE in Dubai for importing fertilizers and other raw materials from foreign companies. Bills were raised by the suppliers in favour of M/s Kisan International Trading at inflated rates to cover up the bribe money to be paid to the accused persons and similar modus was adopted in respect of other manufacturers/suppliers. Money was paid through hawala operators and intermediaries. Group companies of co- accused Rajeev Saxena, who is an accused in Augusta West land Case also, were used for receipt of commission from supplier of fertilizers and other products to IFFCO and IPL. During the commission of crime, sham consultancy agreements and fake invoices for consultancy services were prepared without providing any such services and thus commission was received by group companies of Rajeev Saxena without any genuine transaction and that money was actually illegal commission generated out of import of fertilizers and raw material.

5. It is alleged that accused Amarendra Dhari Singh acted as intermediary along with other accused for channelizing the ill gotten money through different firms and companies. It is alleged that in this manner, Rs. 685 Crores approximately were received in the bank accounts of the group companies and individual account of Rajeev Saxena and other accused including accused Amarendra Dhari Singh. It is alleged that the fertilizers were imported fraudulently at inflated rates and the money was diverted abroad also through complex transactions. It is also the case of ED that in order to provide relief to the farmers, Government of India has been providing subsidies on different types of fertilizers and in calculating subsidy, the cost price of imported fertilizer is important and as such, due to the crime of accused persons, a huge loss also occurred to the public exchequer. It is also alleged that accused Amarendra Dhari Singh had companies namely Lake Village Assets Corp. and Summerpark Cor., which were used for transferring money to another company owned by co-accused. Money lying in the account of the companies of the accused abroad were used for making real estate investments.

6. On the basis of the aforementioned CBFs case, ED had registered an ECIR