Sunil Surendrakumar Kakkad vs State of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Gita Gopi, J.
Sunil Surendrakumar Kakkad - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Application No. 23944 of 2019 With Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2021 In Criminal Misc. Application No. 23944 of 2019 With Criminal Misc. Application (For Extension of Temporary Bail) No. 7 of 2021 in R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 23944 of 2019
Decided On : 09-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. I.H. Syed, MR ADITYA A GUPTA, MOHIT A GUPTA, MR AR GUPTA
For the Respondent: DEVANG VYAS, MR PRANAV TRIVEDI

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45, (1), 24, 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 114, 201, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) - Finance Act, 2018 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21 - Cheated Consortium of Banks - Application For Regular Bail - It is alleged that applicant as one of Directors of M/s Sai Infosystem has cheated consortium of Banks laid by SBI to tune of Rs.867.43 Crores – Held, One of circumstances to consider gravity of offence is also term of sentence that is prescribed for offence accused is alleged to have committed - Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to triple test or tripod test that would be normally applied - In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in relevant enactment passed by legislature nor does bail jurisprudence provides so - While dealing with bail application, three factors are mainly to be seen namely flight risk, tampering evidence and influencing witnesses - So far as flight risk in context of applicant is concerned, proceeding in relation to earlier FIRs against applicant has taken care of said factor, further condition of surrender of passport can secure presence of applicant during trial - In present case, applicant has already spent 20 months imprisonment and in total has spent 47 months - Considering punishment to sections invoked under schedule offence, this Court finds present to be a fit case, where discretion could be exercised in favour of applicant – Application disposed of.

JUDGMENT:

1. The present application for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. read with section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PMLA' for short), has been filed in connection with ECIR No.AMZO/02/2018 for the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad having PMLA Case No.4 of 2019 pending before Designated Court, Ahmedabad.

2. The applicant was arrested in the matter on 20.09.2019 and in the ground of arrest it was mentioned, that C.B.I. has registered different FIRs alleging violation of sections 114, 201, 406, 409, 418, 420 and 120B of the IPC read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act' for short).

2.1 It is alleged that the applicant as one of the Directors of M/s Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd., M/s Atrium Infocomm Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Click Telecom Pvt. Ltd., during the period between 2009-2014 has cheated the consortium of Banks laid by SBI to the tune of Rs.867.43 Crores. On the basis of FIR registered by CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Ahmedabad on 08.02.2018, registered an ECIR being ECIR/AMZO/02-2018 against the present applicant.

2.2 The first and second summons were issued on 16.07.2019 and 09.08.2019 respectively. The applicant states that he had replied both the summons, and had requested for time to appear before the Investigating officer. On telephonic instruction, he appeared on 20.09.2019 for the purpose of investigation and till late night, he was interrogated and at around 11:55 p.m., he was informed of his arrest under the PMLA.

2.3 The applicant states that he is an electronic engineer and had started his business in the year 1992 in the name and style of 'Sai Infosystems', which converted in the year 2003 as 'Sai Info System (India) Pvt. Ltd.' and in the year 2008 Sai Info System (India) Pvt. Ltd. was again converted to closely hold public limited company i.e. 'Sai Info System (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'SIS' for short).

2.4 The applicant states that he had very good business and had reputed clients, therefore, availed various facilities from the Bank under the consortium of SBI based on past performance with the orders on hand being the order of Rs.1600 Crores of Department of Post, order of Rs.700 Crores from Maharashtra Home Department for CCTV Surveillance for entire Mumbai, Rs.64 Crores of Bank of Baroda and Rs.25 to 30 Crores of State Bank of India. Over and above that orders, various others were pending execution. The applicant further states that by his sheer hard-work of more than a decade he had grown in the market of Information Technology, but for the circumstances beyond the applicant and SIS control, the FIRs were filed by the Bankers.

3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed along with Mr.Aditya A. Gupta, learned advocate for the applicant, presented a Chart with the details of Schedule of fence, to apprise about the status of the cases registered against the applicant.

1.	Vastrapur Employees FIR 308/2013	04.09.2013	33.92	Yes	July, 2014- April, 2015 (9 months)	Quash(Dec 15)
2.	Vastrapur Supplier FIR 395/2013	19.10.2013	2	Yes	July, 2014- Yes Sept, 2014 (2 months)	Quash(Dec (Dec 15)
3.	CBI BSM2015E000 (Delay 2 1 (Click Years) Telecom, three Banks single FIR)	16.03.2015	104	Yes	12.05.2017 Yes (HC - Bombay) 12.12.2018 (19 months)
4.	CBI RC.04(E) 2015 (Atrium Infotech, Banks FIR)	25.06.2015 (Delay of 2 Two years)	93.83	Yes	Yes (Sessions Court Bombay)	Seven Quashing
5.	CBI BSM2016E009 (SIS)	07.06.2016 (Delay of 3 Years)	109			Petitions are pen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Guj) 294

Cases Referred (7)