The main legal point established in the judgment is the seriousness of economic offences and the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail during ongoing investigations.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Sibal, J. - This order shall dispose of two petitions being CRM-M-9659 of 2021 - Jagadish Nangineni vs. Directorate of Enforcement and CRM-M-16596-2021 - Jagdish Chandra Sharma vs. Directorate of Enforcement both of which have been filed for the grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing No.ECIR/01/HIU/2019 dated 25.01.2019 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short - the PMLA), arising out of FIR No.291 dated 13.12.2018 registered under Section 10 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 (for short - the 1975 Act) and Section 420 IPC at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.03.2007, Chintels India Limited (for short - Chintels), which owned 149.093 acres of land in Gurugram, applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (for short - DTCP) for the grant of a licence under the 1975 Act for developing a residential colony. Thereafter, on 28.03.2008, Chintels and QVC Realty Company Limited (for short - QVC), the assignors of the aforesaid land, entered into an agreement with Sobha Limited (for short - Sobha) for developing the aforesaid land on a salable area sharing basis and in support of the aforesaid application for the grant of licence, filed such agreement before the DTCP. On favourable consideration of the application, on 22.11.2008, Chintels and DTCP entered into an agreement on the basis of which a licence bearing No.190/2008 dated 24.11.2008 was issued in favour of Chintels. As per the relevant term of the agreement, on which the licence was based, Chintels was required to reserve 25% of the developed residential plots on a 'No Profit No Loss' (for short - NPNL) basis. It was further agreed between the parties that 75% of the NPNL plots would be allotted to registered applicants through a draw of lots (if so required) and the remaining 25% would be allotted to Non Resident Indians against Foreign Exchange; land owners whose land had been purchased by Chintels for setting up the colony; plots falling in small pockets which subsequently are acquired by the colonizers as part of an area already developed as a colony by Chintels and to such persons whom Chintels may like at its discretion (provided that such allotment did not exceed 5% of the total number of NPNL plots).

3. Two other licences bearing Nos.58/2013 and 79/2014 for 3.947 acres and 13.375 acres respectively, which also contained similar terms with regard to reserving and allotting NPNL plots, were also obtained by Chintels.

4. On the strength of the licences obtained by Chintels and the collaboration/ development agreements between Chintels, Sobha and QVC, the land, which was covered under the licences and was situated in Sectors 106, 108 and 109, Gurugram, was started to be developed as a residential colony under the name of 'International City'.

5. On 10.12.2018 the DTCP wrote to the Station House Officer, Police Station village Bajghera, District Gurugram through which the police was informed that as per the agreement/ terms of the licence Chintels was required to reserve and allot 249 NPNL plots. However, it had been found that only 84 NPNL plots had been allotted and out of these 84 plots, 55 had been allotted by Sobha to Limited Liability Partnerships (for short - LLPs) created by Sobha itself. Thus, by allotting the NPNL plots to virtually itself, Sobha, Chintels and QVC had conspired to commit fraud as also had violated the terms of the licence/ agreement. Therefore, the police was requested to take penal action against Chintels, Sobha, QVC and the LLPs under Section 10 of the 1975 Act.

6. On the basis of the above complaint FIR No.291 under Section 420 IPC and Section 10 of the 1975 Act was registered at Police Station Bajghera, District Gurugram and after going through the aforesaid FIR, since the Enforcement Directorate (for short - ED) believed that an offence for laundering of money had