AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cognizance of the complaint. During investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner came to be arrested on 19.06.2019 and since 28.06.2019, the petitioner is under judicial custody in the aforesaid ECIR. 3. In the present FIR, the petitioner has not been arrested till date. 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the present FIR came to be registered on 06.12.2018 at the instance of one Ashish Begwani, who being the Director and authorized representative of 'Enso Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as EIPL), made a complaint that in August, 2010, he met Ravi Parthasarthy, Hari Sankaran, K. Ramchand, Mukund Gajanan Sapre and Sanjiv Krishan Rai in Mumbai. In the said meeting, he was told that the company 'IL&FS Transportation Networks Ltd.' (hereinafter referred to as ITNL) being part of the IL&FS Group, was involved in developing, operating and facilitating surface transportation infrastructure projects. He was told that IL&FS group was a Government backed entity. He was, in particular, apprised of the Gurgaon Metro Project which was promoted by ITNL through 'Enso Rail Systems Ltd.', later came to be known as 'IL&FS Rail Ltd.' (hereinafter refer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. The petitioner joined 'Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited' (IL&FS) as an Assistant Vice-President and later, was sent on deputation to ITNL, where he continued as Managing Director till October, 2018, when he was asked to resign. B) The complainant's allegation of being allured to invest and purchase shares of EIPL by the petitioner in specific and by the accused persons in general, is nothing but a falsehood and an afterthought. The same is evident from the following facts: i) The petitioner neither met the complainant in August, 2010 nor enticed him in any manner. The complainant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner for the subsequent meetings. ii) The complainant had acquired shares of EIPL from the secondary market from June/September, 2010 onwards. The petitioner in fact, had shown displeasure and condemned the entry of the complainant's company in ILRL vide emails dated 21.11.2011 and 22.11.2011, which were sent by him to Sanjiv Krishan Rai, who was the Managing Director of ILRL. Reference was also made to the show cause notice dated 15.11.2018 issued by the Income Tax authorities to contend that the complainant him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ears of age and the co-accused persons namely, R.L. Kabra and Mukund G. Sapre have already been released on bail against whom charge sheet also has been filed. 9. Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, learned APP for the State, duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the bail application. It was submitted that the petitioner had joined IL&FS in the year 1994. He remained associated with ILRL since 2009 and resigned as a Director only on 27.01.2011. The petitioner remained associated with ITNL since 2008 as a Managing Director and resigned only in October, 2018. ITNL was the promoter company of ILRL and its majority shareholder. ITNL & ILRL had a written agreement to the effect that that any sub-contracting would be done with the consent of ITNL. Both Mukund G. Sapre and Sanjiv Krishan Rai used to report to the present petitioner, who was the Managing Director of ITNL. 10. It was further submitted that the petitioner along with others had enticed the complainant to invest in ILRL. Despite the complainant purchasing shares of ILRL by taking over the EIPL, he was deliberately not allowed to become a Director. The petitioner conspired with other co-accused p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng. The petitioner's bail application bearing no. 361/2020 seeking regular bail in the ECIR bearing No. ECIR/MBZO-1/2/2019 has been dismissed by the Bombay High Court vide order dated 29.10.2020. 15. In rebuttal, Mr. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the dismissal of petitioner's bail in the ED case was on entirely different parameters. It was additionally submitted that the sanction granted for investigations conducted by the SFIO has already been quashed by the Bombay High Court on account of non-application of mind. In both of the above cases, the SLP is preferred before the Supreme Court. 16. Before proceeding further, I deem it apposite to refer to the relevant parameters, as culled from various judicial pronouncements, to be kept in mind, at the time of consideration of an anticipatory bail application. 17. The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State Of Maharashtra And Ors. reported as (2011) 1 SCC 694, laid down the following parameters that need to be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g need to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438 CrPC: 92.1. Consistent with the judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465] , when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. 92.2. It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner and co-accused Sanjiv Rai, condemning the purchase of shares by the complaint company, are dated 21.11.2011 and 22.11.2011. iii) The petitioner, in his capacity as Chairman, conducted a meeting of the Board of Directors of ILRL and as per Minutes of Meeting dated 09.02.2010, a 'Committee of Directors' (COD) was constituted, which was authorized to recommend for finalization of contracts to the Board. iv) The COD awarded contracts (alleged to be bogus contracts) for the purpose of land clearance, as detailed in the Status Report, to the following 10 companies: S.No Name of the Company Gross Total amount as per WO (a) Period of amount paid from to Gross TDS / Building Cess / WCT deducted (b) Gross Total Amount Paid (a)-(b) 1. M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Ltd. 218,800,000 15.07.2013 07.04.2014 15,753,600 203,046,400 2. Suryamukhi Projects Pvt. Ltd. 18,988,554 21.7.2010 18.05.2011 180,173 18,808,381 3. AMR Constructions Ltd. 85,650,701 06.09.2010 09.05.2011 2,046,199 83,604,502 4. NKG Infrastructure Ltd. 130,566,480 03.09.2011 20.12.2011 3,916,994 126,649,4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer could interrogate the petitioner only twice i.e., on 20.02.2020 and 21.02.2020 at Arthur Jail, Mumbai during which the petitioner is stated to have not cooperated. Thereafter, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, further investigation could not be done. xiii) The Investigating Officer has pressed for custodial interrogation to find out the end user/beneficiary of the siphoned off public money of Rs. 94 crores. xiv) The complaint itself was filed on 06.08.2018 resulting in registration of the FIR on 06.12.2018. The petitioner was made to resign from his position as Managing Director in October, 2018. xv) The present is not a simpliciter case of commercial transaction gone bad between two individuals but of siphoning off the public money. xvi) The petitioner's regular bail application in the ECIR case has been rejected by the Bombay High Court on 29.10.2020. xvii) The co-accused R.L. Kabra was released on regular bail after considering his medical condition. Mukund Sapre was also released on regular bail after spending considerable time in custody. 20. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.... *** 83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the Accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the Accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court...." 23. The alleged acts were committed when the petitioner was assuming office as a Director of ILRL and also as the Managing Director of ITNL. The 'Committee of Directors', which awarded the contracts, was constituted under the Chairmanship of the petitioner. The two contracts to M/s Suryamukhi Projects Pvt Ltd. and M/s AMR Constructions Pvt Ltd. were awarded during the petitioner's tenure in ILRL. In fact, the petitioner was the Managing Director of ITNL when all the 10 alleged bogus contracts were awarded. The petitioner's knowledge and involvement in the alleged awarding of contracts cannot be ruled out. The investigation qua the petitioner as well as the real benef....