TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said complaint. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow had registered as case vide ECIR/04/PMLA/LKZO/2015 on 08.10.2015 under the provisions of PML Act, 2002 on the basis of FIR No.RC/DST/2015/A/0004 dated 30.07.2015, charge-sheet no. 02/2016 dated 15.03.2016 filed by CBI, STF, New Delhi against Yadav Singh and others (including present applicant) which revealed the violation of section 120-B r/w 420, 109, 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988. The offences under section 120-B, 420 & 471 IPC, section 13 of P.C. Act are covered under scheduled offences under paragraph-1 and paragraph-8 of Part-A mentioned in schedule to PML Act 2002. 5. A perusal of the said complaint would show that the allegations against the accused applicant are contained from paragraph no. 34 onwards. It is mentioned that the charge-sheet filed by CBI revealed that the applicant-accused facilitated her husband Yadav Singh in receipt of amount of Rs. 50.00 lacs through her firm M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt Ltd. having its account at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Noida and from M/s. Countrywide Holding Pvt. Ltd. a firm contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ihar, Delhi for purchase/investment in equity share and that on instruction of Pradeep Garg, he has given 50% to M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd. as an advance without any documents and remaining amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- was incurred in share market as loss. 7. In the statement made by the accused-applicant under section 50 of the PML Act when she was asked as to how much money was invested by her in M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd. and where was the property of the said firm, she promised to reply the same and thereafter again she was put question as to in how many companies she was Director, she replied that she would give explanation about the same by her counter affidavit in 15 days. Thereafter, she was asked to provide her assets and source of money for purchase of them to which she responded that she had already given the said information and that the source of money would be explained by her in the counter affidavit. Further when summons were issued to the applicant for recording her statement under section 50 of PML Act on 12.8.2016 and 2.1.2017, in her statement dated 6.7.2016, the applicant stated that she would appear again on 21.7.2016 along with her counter affidavit for g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said Act which are scheduled offence under PML Act as per section 2(1) (x) & (y) of the said Act. Further in paragraph no. 44 of the complaint, it is mentioned that it became evident that the properties worth Rs. 19.92 crores presently under order of provisional attachment order dated 6.1.2017 were derived from or involved in money laundering which rendered them liable to confiscation and attachment under section 8 (3) of PML Act. It was also mentioned that the investigation was till going on in the said case, as there was sufficient evidence both documentary evidence and oral to draw reasonable inference that the properties under attachment were acquired by the accused applicant along with co-accused out of proceeds of crime in terms of section 2 (u) of the PML Act and a prayer was made that cognizable offence be taken for violation of provision of section 3 of PML Act and punish the accused applicant and other co-accused under section 4 of the said Act. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards judgment of Apex Court dated 07.09.2018 passed in CRLMP No. 126050 of 2018 in WP(Crl.) 177/18 (X) Kusum Lata vs. Union of India and others ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Pradeep Jain have been enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has granted bail to co-accused Ramendra Singh and others and also co-accused Garima Bhushan, Karuna Singh daughter of the applicant and Shrestha daughter-in-law of the applicant have been granted bail, therefore, parity has also been claimed. Further, it is argued that the case mainly rests on the documentary evidence which is in custody of ED and cannot be tampered, hence there would not be occasion for the applicant to tamper the said evidence and she does not have any criminal antecedent. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the following judgments of Supreme Court: 1.Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40. 2. Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 22. 3. Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr.(2018) 11 SCC 1. 4.Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671. 5.Paritosh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (Full Bench of Alld. High Court 6.Sameer Bhujbal vs. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. (Bombay High Court). 7.Dr. Vinod Bhandari vs. Asstt. Director, Directorate of Enfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile sitting at any place either within or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and its Bench, such exercise of power by State Government cannot in any manner be read contrary to any direction of the High Court or any other law for the time being in force including Amalgamation Order 1948 by which the respective territorial jurisdiction of Principal Bench and its Lucknow Bench of this Court has been determined. It was further held that location of the Court which had passed the impugned order or where the proceedings are pending, would not be determining factor for deciding the jurisdiction of the Court, rather it would be at the place where the incident happened. Therefore, we are totally in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no infirmity in filing this bail application before this Court at Allahabad as the place of incident is Noida, which falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. 14. From the side of the opposite party Directorate of Enforcement has vehemently opposed the bail of the applicant by filing a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Rakesh Kumar Meena, Assistant Director, Directorate of En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her admission in ICU rather would require routine care. 16. After having heard both the sides and having perused the entire record, we find that the applicant is shown as accused no. 2 in the complaint case no. 13 of 2017 filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India which has been filed under section 45 of the PML Act for an offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of the said Act on the basis of cogent evidence which has been gathered by the opposite party against the applicant as the applicant is the wife of the main accused Yadav Singh, who was Director of M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd. She was interrogated by the opposite party and her statements were recorded under section 50 of the PML Act but she failed to appear on the date fixed by the opposite party. It was found by the opposite party that M/s. Kusum Garments Pvt. Ltd. of the applicant had share capital of Rs. 1,00,000/- only initially in 2007-08 and that the said company was not able to repay the loan on its own, so it received Rs. 50,00,000/- as loan from, Countrywide Holdings Pvt. Ltd. which is owned by Mohan Lal Rathi, C.A. Sri Mohan Lal Rathi, in his statement dated 24.5.2016....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ol calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest. 17. It is relevant to mention here that the applicant is involved in three other criminal cases besides the present case i.e. under section 3/4 of PML Act 2002 i.e. Complaint Case No.04 of 2018 which was also registered on 8.10.2015 arising out of ECIR/05/PMLA/LKZO/2015; in Special Case No.08-A of 2017 arising out of RC/DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/DLI under section 109 r/w 120B and 13 (2) and 13 (1) (e) of the P.C. Act; and Special Case No. 10-A of 2016 arising out RC/DST/2015/A/0004/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under sections 109, 120B read with section 420, 468, 471 IPC and 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of P.C. Act. 18. The applicant has filed bail application in the aforementioned cases which are also being heard and d....