TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide which respondent-Gagan Dhawan has been granted regular bail in ECIR/HQ/17/2017, under Sections 3/4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short 'PMLA'), whereas in the above captioned second petition, challenge is to order of 23rd October, 2018, vide which respondent-Ranjit Malik @ Johny has been granted bail in the aforesaid ECIR/HQ/17/2017. Since these petitions pertain to ECIR/HQ/17/2017 and the challenge to the aforesaid impugned orders is on similar grounds, therefore, both these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts as noticed in the impugned order of 4th January, 2018 are as under:- "Briefly stated facts of the present case are that an FIR was reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SBL Group, to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- crores from various banks and it was alleged that the said loan was obtained on the basis of fictitious and forged statement of accounts and the money obtained through loan was invested in shell companies in India as well as abroad. It was further found during investigation that the Directors Nitin Jayantiilal Sandesara and Chetan Jayantilal Sandesara, purchased several properties in New Delhi and Gurgaon, Haryana and present applicant helped the said Directors of SBL Group in diverting and mis-utilizing the credit facilities availed through various banks." The role of respondent- Ranjit Malik @ Johny, as re-capitulated in the impugned order of 23rd October, 2018, is as under:- "As to the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsactions are recorded which cannot be erased or tampered with by influence of the applicant. It is also relevant to mention that the role of applicant/accused is limited to Rs. 1.5 crores property out of Rs. 5,000/- crores and admittedly, ED has already attached the plot of applicant worth Rs. 1.17 crores, situated in Gurgaon, Haryana. It is seen that applicant is in custody for last 62 days as he remained in ED remand custody for a period of 15 days and since thereafter he is in judicial custody. Investigation of the case is complete and complaint/ charge-sheet vis-à-vis present applicant has already been filed. Applicant is having clean criminal antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case". In the impugned order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... placed upon Supreme Court's decision in Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 to submit that in economic offences of huge magnitude, economy of the country may be jeopardized but at the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that co-accused Hemant Hathi has been released on bail and the case of respondents herein is on better footing than the case of co-accused Hemant Hathi. Attention of this Court was drawn to Supreme Court's decision in State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 to submit that vague allegation of accused tampering with the evidence or witnesses, cannot be a ground to refuse the bail. It was submitted that in Union of India Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr. (2011) 10 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nconstitutional. The impugned orders have been tested on the parameters for grant of bail, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Amarmani Tripathi (Supra) and this Court finds that in the face of a recent decision of Supreme Court in Tarachand Shah (Supra), no reliance can be placed upon Supreme Court's earlier decision in Hassan Ali Khan (Supra), wherein while invoking Section 45(1) of the PMLA, bail granted was cancelled. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Upendra Rai (Supra) has taken note of the fact that Section 45(1) of the PMLA has been declared as unconstitutional and thereafter, has granted bail in a case under the PMLA involving Rs.16 crores odd. Pertinently, in the case of respondent-Gagan Dhawan, the extent of money launderi....