Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Dineshchand Surana – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Crl.RC.Nos.890, 975, 976, 1026, 1029 & 1030/2023
Decided on : 15-12-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - BAIL AND REMAND - Cr.P.C. 1973: Sections 397, 401, 167(2), 309; PMLA 2002: Section 4 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 397, 401, and 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the rights of the accused to seek bail and the conditions under which remand can be extended. It emphasized that Section 309 does not require reasons to be recorded for remand extensions, and the interpretation of statutory bail under Section 167(2) was clarified, particularly in relation to ongoing investigations under the PMLA. The court concluded that the orders of the trial court were lawful and upheld the denial of bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Managing Director of Surana Industries Limited and Surana Power Limited, faced charges of money laundering involving misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.3986 Crores through manipulation of company accounts and shell companies. He was arrested in July 2022 and sought to challenge the extension of his remand and the dismissal of his bail applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court's orders extending remand were lawful and did not violate the petitioner's rights. It ruled that the complaints filed were not based on incomplete investigations, and the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail as the investigation was ongoing but not incomplete.
Issues: Whether the trial court's extension of remand was lawful without recording reasons, and whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. due to an incomplete investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. does not mandate recording reasons for remand extensions. It clarified that ongoing investigations do not equate to incomplete investigations, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail.
Final Decision: All Criminal Revision Cases filed by the petitioner were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months.
ORDER :
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.890/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, in Crl.MP.No.3546 of 223 in Spl.CC.No.9 of 2022 in ECIR No.CEZO-1/05/2019 and grant the prayers sought for by the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.3546/2023 in Spl.CC.No.9/2022 in ECIR No.CEZO-1/05/2019.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.975/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, in Crl.MP.No.3548 of 223 in Spl.CC.No.10 of 2022 in ECIR No.CEZO-1/42/2020 and grant the prayers sought for by the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.3548/2023 in Spl.CC.No.10/2022 in ECIR No.CEZO-1/42/2020.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.976/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, in Crl.MP.No.3547 of 223 in Spl.CC.No.11 of 2022 in ECIR No.CEZO-1/37/2020 and grant the prayers sought for by the petitioner in Crl.MP.No.354672023 in Spl.CC.No.11/2022 in ECIR No.CEZO- 1/37/2020.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.1026/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner and consequently enlarge the petitioner on default bail in Spl.CC.No.11/2022 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Special Judge-CBI in the interest of justice and equity.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.1029/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner and consequently enlarge the petitioner on default bail in Spl.CC.No.09/2022 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Special Judge-CBI in the interest of justice and equity.
Prayer in Crl.RC.No.1030/2023:- Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973, to set aside the order dated 27.01.2023 dismissing the bail petition of the petitioner and consequently enlarge the petitioner on default bail in Spl.CC.No.10/2022 on the file of the learned XIV Additional Special Judge-CBI in the interest of justice and equity.
(1) Since all the revisions are filed by the accused/petitioner challenging the orders passed, remanding him to custody and the orders dismissing the bail applications filed by him under Section 167[2] of Cr.P.C., the above revisions are disposed of by this common order.
(2) The petitioner is facing trial in three Special Calendar Cases, namely, Spl. CC.Nos.9, 10 and 11/2022 pending before the learned XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, on the complaints given by the respondent herein under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA'].
(3) The petitioner is the Managing Director of two Companies, by name Surana Industries Limited [SIL] and Surana Power Limited [SPL]. The two companies are accused in Spl.CC.No.09/2022 and 11/2022. The petitioner herein is also a promotee of M/s.Surana Corporation Limited which is an accused in Spl.CC.No.10/2022. In the above capacities, the petitioner has also been arrayed as accused in the three complaints filed against the three Companies.
(4) The case of the respondent is that the petitioner, through the aforesaid Companies, has misappropriated the credit facilities extended to the Companies and siphoned them off for personal gains causing loss to the tune of Rs.3986 Crores and odd and thus, was involved in the offence of Money Laundering.
(5) Initially, three ECIRs were recorded against the Companies and its Directors and their investigation revealed that the Companies above named, through their Directors/Promotees, indulged in the manipulation of Books of Accounts, indulged
The court established that the extension of remand under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. does not require reasons to be recorded, and ongoing investigations do not automatically grant entitlement to statu....
(1) Default bail – An incomplete charge-sheet filed without completing investigation cannot be used to defeat right of statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.(2) Default bail – Investigative a....
The court emphasized the importance of cooperation with the investigation, the gravity of the offense, and the need to balance the fundamental right of personal liberty with the reasonable restrictio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and the distinction between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages in determin....
The pendency of a criminal appeal does not bar proceeding with the trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as the PMLA proceedings are independent and distinct from other penal proceeding....
The delay in trial, the seriousness of the offences alleged, and the objections raised by the prosecution and intervenor were key factors in denying bail to the petitioner.
The right to statutory bail is inalienable once the statutory period expires for failing to file charges, irrespective of case merits.
(1) Personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution cannot be deprived to a citizen except with procedure established by law.(2) Bail – Operation of bail granted in some special circu....
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
