TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 1896
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 14.1.2019 in the cases pertaining to schedule offences wherein the charge sheet has been submitted by the CBI, the accusedapplicant be also released on bail on the ground of parity as similarly placed co-accused i.e. Shri Pradeep Garg having similar role in the alleged crime, has been released on bail by subordinate Court vide order dated 4.9.2018 passed in pursuance of the order dated 28.5.2018 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bail No. 2653 of 2018. He further submits that co-accused Pradeep Garg approached this Court for bail in PMLA Case No. 13 of 2017 in Bail No. 2653 of 2018 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.5.2018 directed the subordinate court to enlarge the co-accused pradeed garg, on provisional bail subject to the final outcome of SLP(Crl.) No. 8836 of 2018. Hon'ble Supreme Court granted regular bail to co-accused Pradeep Garg and subordinate court confirmed his bail accordingly. The case of the accusedapplicant is at par with co-accused Pradeep Garg, therefore, the applicant be also released on bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that the applicant has always cooperated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decided on 29.08.2018)." Learned counsel for the accused-applicant overwhelmingly submitted that on the ground of parity with co-accused Pradeep Garg and otherwise also the accused-applicant is entitled to bail. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant further submits that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value as per the charge sheet submitted by the CBI a loss of Rs. 5,11,23,327/- suffered by NOIDA has been attributed to the applicant and a provisional attachment of Rs. 5.11 Crores has been attached by the Enforcement Directorate and vide order dated 30.6.2017 this provisional attachment has been confirmed by the adjudicating Authority PMLA, New Delhi and payment of amount of Rs. 3.38 Crores has also been with-held by NOIDA Authorities, therefore against the alleged loss of Rs. 5.11 Crores an amount of Rs. 8.49 Crores has been secured in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for Union of India Shri Shiv P. Shukla overwhelmingly opposed the bail application on the ground that the accused-applicant is a part of large scam wherein NOIDA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u Vs. Manoj Kumar Assistant Director, Surpeme Court-2016 AIR 106. 4. Binod Kumar v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 463 5. Smt. Kusum Lata wife of Yadav Singh, Co-accused dated 18.12.2018 (Allahabad High Court passed in criminal misc. bail Application No. 42101 of 2018.)." Having heard learned counsels for the parties, perusal of charge sheet filed by CBI after investigation with regard to schedule offences as well as complaint filed by Director of Enforcement under PMLA Act 2002 reveals that the Triputi Construction, a Company owned by applicant, has caused a loss of Rs. 5,11,23,327/- to the NOIDA, against actual payment of Rs. 8,46,99,596/-. Accused applicant is alleged to be a part of financial fraud which has caused a loss of Rs. 5,11,23,327/- to the public exchequer, so far as his involvement In the matter is concerned. Accused-applicant has never been arrested during investigation and he surrendered before the Special Court in response to the summons issued. In schedule offences he has been granted bail vide order dated 14.01.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10552 of 2018, relevant portion of whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bail to co-accused, Pradeep Garg in schedule offences. The Trial Court however confirmed the provisional bail of Pradeep Garg as he was granted regular bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court in schedule offences. In the case of applicant the money lying in Bank Accounts of two Banks to the tune of Rs. 5.11 Crore has been attached by the Enforcement Officer in schedule offences and the provisional attachment has also been confirmed by the adjudicating authority . In schedule offences present applicant was denied bail by this Court on the ground that he has not made any proposal to deposit the additional money of Rs. 5.11 Crore as has been deposited by co-accused Pradeep Garg. However Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to applicant in schedule offences has not imposed any such condition to deposit any extra money commensurate to the alleged loss caused to public exchequer and stated in its order dated 14.01.2019 as under :- " Having regard to the entire circumstances of the case including the fact that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail and the entire money of the State shall stand secured the petitioner shall also be released on bail on such terms and conditi....