2018 (11) TMI 1818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....this Court on 16.5.2018. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the new ground on which the present second bail application has been filed is that the co-accused Pankaj Jain has been granted bail by the Apex Court on 14.5.2018, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the present bail application. He further stated that the Apex Court granted bail to the said accused on the reasons which weighed for enlarging the Pankaj Jain on bail, are reproduced herebelow:- (a) The petitioner is 60 per cent permanently physically handicapped. (b) Though the conduct of the petitioner is blameworthy as he tried to avoid the process after the cognizance in the matte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hheld by NOIDA Rs. 3,38,74,177/- Para 16 of C.B.I counter Amount with ED Rs. 2,83,00,000/-   Rs. 2,10,28,237/-  Rs. 4,93,28,237/- With Appellate Tribunal of PMLA  With Bank attached on orders of ED (Total) Letter dated 26.6.2018 and orders of Appellate Tribunal of PMLA Total amount secured Rs. 8,32,02,414/-           The learned counsel for the CBI opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits of the case on 16.5.2018 wherein the reliance was also placed on the order passed by the Apex Court in the matter of the co-accused Pradeep Garg whose case was identical to the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rs. 4.53 crores which could be realised from the aforesaid amounts, yet the Apex court had directed Pradeep Garg of M/s. Tirupati Construction Company to make payment of Rs. 4.52 crores in court as is clear above, while in the case at hand there is much less amount with the Authority of M/s. Tirupati Constructions for realising the calculated loss of Rs. 5.64 crores caused by it to the State exchequer, yet the learned counsel for the applicant is not prepared to deposit any additional amount in court, therefore there could be no parity of the present accused with the co-accused Pradeep Garg. He further submitted that so far as the order of co-accused Pankaj Jain is concerned, he was handicapped person suffering from 60% disability, the C....