TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 1806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders passed in this matter. On 7.5.2018 following order was passed. "Heard Sri Dinesh Kakkar, Sri O.P. Tripathi, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I. On10.4.2018, this Court passed the following order:- Sri Manish Gupta, Advocate, has filed his power on behalf of applicants and the same is taken on record. He further stated that he has taken no objection from previous counsel, Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, earlier engaged in this case, who is also present along with him before this Court. Heard Sri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. This Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicants on bail in Special Case No. 08 of 2017 arising out of RC/DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under Sections 109 r/w 120 B I.P.C. and 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears from the record that on 14.3.2018, an order was passed on the petition filed by the petitioners/applicants being Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 59/2018, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng taken into custody, to which Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has stated that as the trial court has rejected the bail application of the applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the custody, if had to be taken by the trial court and could not be taken due to the above order of the Apex Court, he would not press for the applicants to be taken into custody for hearing of the present bail application. It is pertinent to mention here the relevant provision for hearing a bail application before this Court as provided under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which is as follows: "Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. 439. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct- (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub- section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Constitution of India." It is clear from the above that there was a specific avernment made in the application that the petitioners were present in the Court in terms of order dated 14.3.2018 passed by this Court. Therefore, it was permissible for the Court to treat the said averment as surrender by the petitioners and take them into custody and then decide the application for bail Learned counsel has shown judgment in 'Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.' [2014 16 SC 623] and clarifies that there was no inhibition to consider the application for bail on merits. We, thus, permit the petitioners to approach the High Court again and file an application on the same basis. It would be open to the High Court to treat the presence of the petitioners as surrender and take them into custody and, thereupon, decide the application for bail, as well, simultaneously. The interim order passed by this Court stands extended by two weeks or to the date of surrender, whichever is earlier. The special leave petitions stand disposed of." The Apex Court has modified the above order on 1.5.2018 which is reproduced as under:- "Upon hearin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h and Sunny Singh involved in Special Case No. 08 of 2017 arising out of R/C/DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.7.2015 under sections 109 read with 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) and 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered with CBI, New Delhi be released on interim bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Anti Corruption, C.B.I. Cases), Ghaziabad on or before 11.5.2018. The Special Judge (Anti Corruption, C.B.I. Cases), Ghaziabad shall ensure that if the applicants have any passport, the same shall be deposited and the applicants may not leave the country without the permission of this Court. It is made clear that all the three applicants shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed failing which coercive action shall be taken against them. The Registrar General is directed send a certified copy of this order to the trial court concerned forthwith for compliance/necessary information." 4. On the next date i.e. 24.5.2018 all the three accused-applicants remained present in Court at the time of hearing of arguments. 5. According to the fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce then he has been working there with the same designation. He remained posted in Division-III of the Greater Noida Authority. He was married with Ms. Shreshtha, who is a house wife and did her B.Tech from ABES University, Ghaziabad. During investigation, it was decided to keep the check period 01.04.2004 to 04.08.2015 i.e. the date of search based on the maximum acquisition of the assets. During the investigation, income, expenditures and assets of Yadav Singh, Kusum Lata, Sunny Yadav and Shreshtha Singh were clubbed considering that these persons were residing under one roof at A-10, Sector 51, Noida. However, income, assets and expenditure of Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh, the daughters of Yadav Singh, who are living separately with their husbands since their marriage, were not taken into consideration. The movable assets of Sunny Yadav are shown to be Rs. 1,13,087/- which require explanation . The Immovable assets at the end of check period of Sunny Yadav were found to be Rs. 31,35,520/- and Rs. 41,92,870/-, details of which has been mentioned in a tabular form at page 63 of the paper book. Investigation further revealed that Sunny Yadav purchased shop No.G-23/S-II, Savitri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oney to purchase the said shares was arranged by family members of Yadav Singh for Kumar Saurav. It is further revealed that he claimed short term capital gain of Rs. 70,823/- during financial year 2007-08 to 2009-10 by transaction of shares, and suffered a net loss of Rs. 51,188 in these share transactions instead of profit claimed. He has shown net income of Rs. 2,34,021 from his proprietary firm M/s. Infratech Engineers. Investigation revealed that a gross receipt of Rs. 5,01,625/- was shown during financial year 2007-08 out of which Rs. 3.15 lacs less TDS of Rs. 32,000/- was shown from M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. The income shown from M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. was in fact shown professional fee of Mohan Rathi for rendering the service of accounting for M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. As such benefit of Rs. 2,34,021/- claimed from M/s. Infratech Engineers was not given to Sunny Yadav. During investigation, Sunny Yadav failed to provide the balance sheet and books of accounts of M/s. Infra Tech. Engineers. At page 55 and 56 expenditure of Sunny Yadav has been given as Rs. 76,02,681/- and details of them have also been mentioned in the tabular chart. 7. Investigation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IFT, Delhi in 2003 was married with Sri Shashi Bhushan Lal Sushil, IAS (UP;2001) on 4.11.2003 and she has a son and a daughter aged about 11 years and 13 years respectively. The accused-applicant no. 2 is the second daughter of Sri Yadav Singh, She completed her MBBS in 2008 and thereafter had got married to Sri Narender Kumar Singh, IPS (JH-2006) on 19.11.2008. She has two sons aged about 8 years and 6 years respectively. The accused-applicant no. 3 is the son of Sri Yadav Singh. He did his B.Tech (Civil) in 2009 and joined as Manager Grade-I in Greater Noida Industrial Authority in 25.02.2010 and was working there in Division III. He has married Ms. Shreshtha since 14.02.2013. He has a son. They have been falsely implicated. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the sole allegation against these accused is that they established fake firms, which is wrong as all the payments were made by cheques. Whatever moneys were made by them, all these have been shown in their income tax returns. They have concealed nothing and transaction account has been given by each of them before Income Tax Authority. They have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us, the bail of all the applicants should be rejected as they are involved in converting ill-gotten money of the main accused Yadav Singh into white money. 12. After having heard the rival contentions, we have found that the evidence which has been produced indicates that the main accused Yadav Singh and his family members are found to have disproportionate assets worth Rs. 23,15,41,514/- (512.66%) to his known sources of income either in his own name or in the name of his family members regarding which no satisfactory reply could be given by them. A large number of partnership firms and private companies have been alleged to have been established /created by the accused applicants as well as other co-accused, wife of the main accused Yadav Singh, Smt. Kusum Latae. Lot of details have been given about the fake transaction being entered into by the aforesaid companies which helped the main accused Yadav Singh in converting his ill-gotten money into white money. However, it may also be taken into consideration that two accused namely Garima Bhushan, Karuna Singh both are married to well placed persons i.e. IAS Officer and IPS Officer, therefore, whatsoever their income is being sh....