TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anoj Singh (HUF) acquired assets worth Rs. 12,95,47,971/- which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. It has been alleged that Sri Manoj Singh had acquired proceeds of crime and placed the said proceeds of crime in the form of fixed deposit and other deposits. In the commission of the said offence, Sri Manoj Kumar Singh had been intentionally assisted by the other accused persons. Based on the aforesaid allegation, a complaint case was lodged which was registered as ECIR/02/PAT/11/AD in which cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The background facts prior to the institution of the complaint is that on 15.10.2009 and 21.10.2009, searches were conducted by the Income Tax Department at Ranchi and in the village of Sri Manoj Kumar, in course of which there was a recovery of 169 fixed deposit receipts investing Rs. 12,54,45, 499/- with Uttar Pradesh Chhetriya Gramin Bank, Magarpal, Murtaza branch, Chhapra; 24 fixed deposits worth Rs. 12,75,000/- invested with United Bank of India, R. K. Mission Extension Counter, Morhabadi, Ranchi; Rs. 4,49,000/- in the savings bank account of Sri Manoj Kumar in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in which he has stated about the valuation done and the charges taken by him and which has been shown in the Income Tax return for the financial year 2005-06. It has been submitted that the petitioner has given suitable explanation about his income and it cannot be said that the income generated by the petitioner was from the proceeds of crime. Mr. Rajendra Krishna has also referred to the case of "Shri P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in 2020 (1) JBCJ 28 (SC) and has stated that the criteria laid down for grant of bail does not disentitle the petitioner to the same. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 15.02.2020 and no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. So far as the petitioners in B. A. No. 2806 of 2020 are concerned, learned counsel submits that the petitioners have been implicated for being the brothers of Manoj Kumar. In course of investigation, none of the witnesses have taken the name of these petitioners. It has been stated that both the petitioners are in custody since 28.02.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to a judgment in the case of "Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urse of investigation that the address of M/s. Star Traders has been given in the invoices submitted by Sri Manoj Kumar which is apparently false as there is no firm in existence in the name of M/s. Star Traders at Surat. In fact the son of Raj Kumar Patodia had denied being aware of any purchase of diamond or of the residential address of his father which had been provided by the petitioner - Manoj Kumar. In fact, with respect to the agricultural income for which reliance has been placed on various documents by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in course of investigation, the statements of several persons who were said to have purchased the agricultural produce have stated otherwise which also contradicts the claim of the petitioner - Manoj Kumar Singh regarding his explanation with respect to the income from agricultural produce. So far as the petitioner in B. A. No. 2806 of 2020 is concerned, they appear to have been implicated being the brothers of the main accused - Sri Manoj Kumar. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to some of the pronouncements which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of "Shri P. Chidambara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty. 22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some unconvicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances. 23. Apart from the question ....