PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Sikandar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
CRM-M-57948-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 31-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J.
1. Present Second petition has been filed, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), read with 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "Cr.P.C.") with a prayer to forthwith release the petitioner on bail/default bail in ECIR/GNZO/20/2021, dated 16.11.2021, registered at Gurugram Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement (for short, "E.D."), under Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, "PMLA").
2. BRIEF FACTS:-
2.1 M/s Mahira Homes Pvt. Ltd is the holding company of various other associate companies, including M/s Sai Aaina Farms Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "SAFPL"), M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Mahira Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.) (for short "M/s Czar") and M/s Mahira Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (for short "M/s Mahira Buildtech"), which are dealing with construction projects in Sectors 68, 103 & 104; respectively, at Gurugram.
2.2 On 17.05.2016, the SAFPL applied for an affordable Housing Project under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban for construction of 1500 Flats in the land measuring 9.96875 acres, situated in revenue estate of Village Badshahpur, Sector 68, Gurugram.
2.3 On the basis of above request, the Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, (for short, "DGTCP") issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) vide Memo. No.LC-3298-JE(VA)2017/27074 dated 27.10.2017 in favour of SAFPL. In order to comply with the terms & conditions of the aforesaid LOI, the SAFPL furnished two Bank Guarantees issued by IDBI Bank i.e.
(i) LC No.3298 B.G No.1401381BGF00103 for an amount of Rs.2,63,23,892/- towards External Development Charges (EDC); and
(ii) LC No.3298 B.G No.1401381BGF00104 for an amount of Rs.1,24,61,000/- in lieu of Internal Development Work (IDW)
2.4 Thereafter, vide memo dated 22.12.2017, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (for short, "D.T.C.P") granted License No.106 of 2017 for construction of 1500 flats in favour of SAFPL, in Sector 68, Gurugram. Also transpires that SAFPL obtained requisite license on 02.02.2018 from Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, "Act of 2016"). On the basis of above permission/license granted by D.T.C.P/HRERA, the SAFPL collected booking amount from 1500 prospective home buyers to the tune of Rs.363 crores.
2.5 One Neeraj Chaudhary, Additional Director of M/s D.S. Estates & Construction Pvt. Ltd.(in one of the companies of petitioner), filed two separate complaints (Nos.COMI/486/2020 & COMI/487/2020) before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram (for short "CJM"), under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C read with Section 156(3) thereof, for registration of FIRs against SAFPL; present petitioner, as well as other co-accused.
2.6 Learned CJM, vide order dated 07.01.2021, directed SHO, Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram, for registration of FIRs. In pursuance of the order dated 07.01.2021, FIR Nos.10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 were registered against SAFPL and other co-accused, including present petitioner, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "IPC") at Police Station, Sushant Lok, District Gurugram.
2.7 It was alleged in the above FIRs that SAFPL furnished fake bank guarantee(s) in favour of D.T.C.P while obtaining License No.106 and apart that, they cheated complainant-Neeraj Chaudhary.
2.8 The contents of above FIRs were scrutinized by the E.D. and it was found that offences under Sections 120-B, 420, 467 & 471 IPC are falling within the definition of "scheduled offence" as envisaged under Section 2(y) of the PMLA and covered under Part-A of the Schedule thereof. As a result of the above, ECIR No.GNZO/20/2021 was recorded by the E.D. on 16.11.2021 against SAFPL as well as other co-accused, including present petitioner.
2.9 On 09.02.2024, both the above complaints filed by Neeraj Chaudhary were dismissed as withdrawn before the Cou
Prolonged incarceration before trial infringes on the right to speedy trial, necessitating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if trial delays are significant.
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
Anticipatory bail under the PMLA requires clear evidence that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences, which was not demonstrated in this case.
In PMLA cases, constitutional courts grant bail despite Section 45 twin conditions if prolonged incarceration (over two years), trial delay not attributable to accused, and no reasonable trial conclu....
Bail is to be denied in economic offenses when serious, substantiated evidence of money laundering exists, per provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.