Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Raj Singh Gehlot - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
Bail Application No. 4295 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Applicant, a qualified Chartered Accountant, was not arrested in the scheduled offence and the charge sheet came to be filed without arrest. He was formally admitted to regular bail in the scheduled offence and his passport has already been seized by the ACB, Srinagar. The applicant has also admittedly joined investigation on a number of occasions. The evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, which has been seized. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant is not a flight risk and fears, if any, of his fleeing from justice can be allayed by imposing conditions and taking measures such as issuance of LOCs, etc. The statements of the witnesses having been recorded under Section 50 PMLa and the documents relevant to the investigation having been collected, the apprehensions regarding the applicant influencing witnesses and/or tampering with evidence are unfounded. The respondent has also failed to point out any instance of influencing of witnesses/tampering with evidence by the applicant during the investigation. In this backdrop, the Court is of the view that the applicant satisfies the triple test for grant of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a qualified Chartered Accountant, was not arrested in the scheduled offence and the charge sheet came to be filed without arrest. He was formally admitted to regular bail in the scheduled offence and his passport has already been seized by the ACB, Srinagar. The applicant has also admittedly joined investigation on a number of occasions. The evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, which has been seized. The statements of the witnesses having been recorded under Section 50 PMLa and the documents relevant to the investigation having been collected, the apprehensions regarding the applicant influencing witnesses and/or tampering with evidence are unfounded. The respondent has also failed to point out any instance of influencing of witnesses/tampering with evidence by the applicant during the investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court is of the view that the applicant satisfies the triple test for grant of bail.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Sections 44/45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMLa') and arising out of ECIR No. 14/STF/2019 registered under Sections 3/4 PMLa by the respondent/ED.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the applicant satisfies the triple test for grant of bail. The Court considered the following factors in reaching its decision: * The applicant is a qualified Chartered Accountant with deep roots in society. * He was not arrested in the scheduled offence and the charge sheet came to be filed without arrest. * He was formally admitted to regular bail in the scheduled offence and his passport has already been seized by the ACB, Srinagar. * He has also admittedly joined investigation on a number of occasions. * The evidence in the case is primarily documentary in nature, which has been seized. * The statements of the witnesses having been recorded under Section 50 PMLa and the documents relevant to the investigation having been collected, the apprehensions regarding the applicant influencing witnesses and/or tampering with evidence are unfounded. * The respondent has also failed to point out any instance of influencing of witnesses/tampering with evidence by the applicant during the investigation.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the applicant's bail application.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant seeking regular bail in Complaint Case No.39/2021 filed under Sections 44/45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering act, 2002 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'PMLa') and arising out of ECIR No. 14/STF/2019 registered under Sections 3/4 PMLa by the respondent/ED.
Factual Background
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one M/s aman Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'aHPL'), a group entity of ambience Group which was founded by the applicant, purchased a plot of commercial land at Shahdara in an open auction held by the DDa on 03.03.2006 for the purpose of construction and development of a hotel. Upon technical evaluation, the cost of the hotel project was estimated as Rs.867 crores, in which promoters' contribution was fixed @ Rs.287 crores and Term loan @ Rs.580 crores. Based on this estimate, aHPL approached J&K Bank, ansal Plaza Branch through the applicant, with a proposal dated 12.03.2009 for sanction of loan of Rs.75 crores and BG facility of Rs.15 crores towards financial closure.
Later, the development strategy was changed and it was decided that a luxury hotel would be constructed instead of two hotels of lower categories. The step having resulted in cost escalation, the feasibility of the project, the cost and the source of finance were re-assessed by PNB Investment Services Ltd., and the loan amount was worked out @ Rs.810 crores and promoter's contribution was fixed @ Rs.462 crores. The total project cost was estimated as Rs.1272 crores. In due course, a Term loan of Rs.810 crores was sanctioned and disbursed in favor of aHPL by a consortium of banks, led by J&K Bank. When the company turned defaulter, the consortium of banks sanctioned a funded interest term loan of Rs.165.82 crores to restructure its loan. aHPL still failed to discharge its obligations, and as a result, J&K Bank declared the company's loan account NPa on 30.06.2018.
3. On the basis of source report verification, FIR No. 15/2019 dated 24.07.2019 was registered by anti-Corruption Bureau (aCB), J&K against the applicant and others, for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 (hereinafter, referred to as 'RPC') and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption act Samvat, 2006 (hereinafter, referred to as 'J&K PC act'). On 20.03.2021, charge sheet No. 1 was filed against the applicant, aHPL, M/s ambience Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, referred to as 'aPL') and others, under Section 120B read with Sections 409/420 RPC and Sections 5(1)(c)/5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K PC act, for misappropriation and diversion of funds from the loan of Rs.100 crores sanctioned by J&K Bank. The applicant was not arrested and the charge sheet was filed without arrest. Vide order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned addl. Special Judge, anti-Corruption Srinagar, the applicant was formally admitted to regular bail in the scheduled offence.
The Prosecution Complaint
4. On 18.10.2019, the ECIR in question came to be registered against the applicant and others under Sections 3/4 PMLa. During investigation, it was revealed that out of the Term loan of Rs.810 crores, Rs.781 crores were routed by the accused through Escrow account No. CD *** (i.e. 0408010*********) maintained with J&K Bank, ansal Plaza Branch, Delhi, in which the loan amount was disbursed. The payments were made to various entities, including 25 non-contracting parties (21 companies and 4 individuals), who were not connected with the project in any manner and did not provide any service or goods in furtherance of its implementation.
5. The amounts received by the 25 non-contracting parties were transferred to one M/s Raj Commercials and agencies and one M/s M&N Commercials, which companies further transferred the funds to ambience Group companies, wherefore the money was used to
The triple test for grant of bail in cases involving economic offences under the PMLa is:
* Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence;
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
The main legal point established is the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the principle of granting bail in economic offences when the investigation is complete and the tria....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
