AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 962
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. Sobha Developers Ltd. It is alleged that M/s. Chintels India Pvt., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Chintels Group') obtained three licenses from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Gurugram, Haryana, for the purpose of development of a plotted colony over the land measuring 166.415 acres. The said agreement was signed between the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana and M/s. Chintels Group. As per the agreement, 25% of the plots were to be based on 'No Profit No Loss Scheme ('NPNL' Scheme'). The said purpose was to ensure that the profits of the builder or developer were to be capped. However, M/s. Chintels Group, M/s. QVC Realty Developer Pvt., Ltd., and M/s. SDL bypassed the same. The petitioner being the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of M/s. SDL has actively involved and well conversant with the said violation. Pursuant to this, the Director, Town and Country Planning filed a complaint before Haryana Police and registered the FIR in Crime No.291/2018 on 13.12.2018. It is submitted that since Section 420 of IPC is a scheduled offence under Section 2(1)(y) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PML Act' for sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent No.2-ED intervened and registered a case only to harass the petitioner. Absolutely, there is no violation of the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner-Company and M/s. Chintels Group. Even there is no evidence to show that the sites were sold to the persons for purchasing under the NPNL Scheme. Unless it is shown that the accused has intentionally cheated the complainant, there is no jurisdiction for respondent No.2- ED to register the case. Even assuming that the offence under Section 420 is made out, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is required for any custodial interrogation as he has already visited respondent No.2-ED for nine times and produced all the relevant documents and there is nothing recovered from this petitioner. He may not require for any further investigation. Therefore, prayed for granting anticipatory bail. 5. Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Counsel for the Central Government has filed a written objection to the petition and objected the bail petition mainly on the two grounds. The first ground urged by the learned counsel is that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail for the offence committed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Group and the Director of Town and Country Planning with respect to development of the properties and by fixing the rate by Haryana Urban Development Authority for Rs. 21.359 per Sq.Mtrs. in respect of NPNL plots. It is also alleged that after developing the land, 59 plots said to have been sold under the Limited Liability Partners (LLP) who are the employees ie. petitioner Company and subsequently, 59 plots were said to have been sold to Eunomia Developers and in turn the Eunomia Developers said to have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. SDL i.e. petitioner Company thereby, the Haryana Police have registered a case against the petitioner and others for the offence under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act and Section 420 of IPC. It is also not in dispute that after completion of the investigation, the Haryana Police filed the charge sheet only under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act by deleting Section 420 of IPC as there was no loss caused to the Authority. Subsequently, it is also alleged that respondent No.2-ED said to have registered a case against the petitioner Company and others in ECIR/01/HIU/2019 on 25.01.2019 and took up the investigation. During the investigation, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....984 CRI.L.J. 757 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in Capt.SATISH KUMAR SHARMA vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION & Others, 1991 CRI.L.J. 950 wherein it is held that section 438 of Cr.P.C., is wide enough to confer jurisdiction not only to the High Court or the Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed and is to be enquired into and tried but also the High Court or the Court of Sessions where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested in connection with the commission of non-bailable offence. In the aforesaid decisions the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court of Delhi have considered the decisions rendered by various other High Courts on the subject and have held that the jurisdiction relating to cognizance of an offence and that of granting of bail are entirely different. Bails are against arrest and detention. Therefore, the appropriate court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or is apprehended or is contemplated will also have jurisdiction to grant bail to the person concerned. The proposition laid down in the above decisions leave no manner of doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court to grant an order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Counsel relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saurabh Sangal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2020 SCC Online MP 1323, wherein it has been held that the Court cannot grant any transit bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. It has been held at paragraph-10 as under: "10. Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion, that the practice of entertaining applications for "Transit Bail" is passé. It was a procedure having no statutory sanction, yet justifiable in a bygone era when poor logistics, transportation and dismal communication saw persons being arrested by the Police of another State even before such a person could move the Sessions Court or the High Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain his application for anticipatory bail. It is no longer so. The practice of "Transit Bail" by which the High Court or the Sessions Court could pass an order of anticipatory bail for a limited duration to enable the person to approach the appropriate court to seek an proper order of anticipatory bail or bail, has ceased to have any utility in the present day India. The Applicant herein can effectively pursue his remedy by moving an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sal of the allegation made against the petitioner goes to show that, as stated above, there was an agreement entered into between the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for developing the land measuring 166.415 acres to the Chintels Group and thereafter, the Chintels Group said to have entered into an agreement with M/s. SDL, in which the petitioner is the Vice Chairman and Managing Director. It appears that after the development of the land, 59 plots said to have been sanctioned or allotted to the employees of M/s. SDL under the LLP Scheme and later, it appears that there was violation of the terms and conditions. Therefore, the case was registered against the Chintels Group earlier under Section 420 of IPC as well as under Section 10 of the HDRUA Act and while filing the charge sheet, the Haryana Police deleted Section 420 of IPC. Subsequently, there was internal correspondence between the Economic Offences Wing and Haryana Urban Development Authority where they have stated that the offence Section 420 of IPC is also attracted. Subsequently, the respondent No.2-ED registered a case against M/s. SDL i.e. petitioner Company including Chintels Group and others where it was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under: (SCC p.371, para 5) - "5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest." 81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under: (SCC p.449, paras 34-34) "34. Economic offences constitute a class ....