TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s alleged that a CBI case was registered vide RC 221/2021/E/0009 on 17.05.2021 U/s 120B, 420 IPC and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act) against accused Amarendra Dhari Singh and other accused persons. 3. Accused Amarendra Dhari Singh was a Senior Vice President of M/s Jyoti Trading Corporation, at the relevant time. The accused persons named in the CBI case entered into a criminal conspiracy during 2007 to 2014 and cheated and defrauded IFFCO and Indian Potash Limited. (IPL), the share holders of those entities and the Government of India by fraudulently importing fertilizers and other materials for fertilizer production at inflated prices and claimed higher subsidy from Government of India causing loss of several crores of rupees. They allegedly siphoned off the commission received from the suppliers through a complex web of fake commercial transactions through multiple companies owned by the accused persons, registered outside India in order to camouflage the fraudulent transactions. 4. It is claimed that IFFCO set up its 100% subsidiary namely M/s Kisan International Trading FZE in Dubai for importing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aundering Act (hereinafter referred to as PMLA) of Sh. Rajeev Saxena and Sh. Sunil Gupta, Shubham Aggarwal and other employees of Alankit Group of Companies. 7. From the statement recorded of various witnesses under Section 50 of PMLA and the documents filed on record, it is apparent that on the basis of fake invoices, money in the form of commission was received from M/s.Uralkali General Trading, Gibralter and Gulf Marine, Dubai etc. in the various entities under the control of Rajeev Saxena like Midas Metal International and M/s. Pacific International and thereafter, Rajeev Saxena had transferred the said proceeds of crime on the instructions of Amarendra Dhari Singh, Pankaj Jain and Sanjay Jain to individuals Amol Awasthi, Anupam Awasthi, Vivek Gahlaut, Pankaj Jain, Sanjay Jain, Amarendra Dhari Singh and entities owned and controlled by these persons. 8. The said proceeds of crime were projected as consultancy income/management fees. It has also come on record in the statement of various witnesses that thereafter Triton Trading DMCC (entity of Rare Earth Group) of Sh. Pankaj Jain had transferred the proceeds of crime to M/s.Alankit Global Resources DMCC, Dubai and Alankit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Managing Director and Director of the accused companies No. 4 and 5 namely Alankit Limited and Alankit Assignments Ltd. DMCC but the Ld. Special Judge has refused to summon the petitioner vide order dated 07.08.2021. 13. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has the apprehension of his arrest as the petitioner is one of the directors of M/s Alankit Limited and the said company has been arrayed as an accused No. 4 in the PC filed by the respondent. He further submitted that petitioner/accused has apprehension of his arrest because accused No. 2 in the said PC is the father of the petitioner who chairs Alankit Group of Companies and was previously arrested by the prosecuting agency and lateron enlarged on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of his arrest as the respondent has been insisting on the summoning of the petitioner on behalf of accused No. 4 and 5 but the same has been declined which is evident from the copy of order dated 07.08.2021. 14. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. counsel for the petitioner that after the registration of the ECIR investigation was carried out and duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by providing all the information and documents as per his knowledge. He further submitted that since the petitioner has joined the investigation number of times, no useful purpose would be served by taking him in custody. He further submitted that the punishment provided for the alleged offence is maximum imprisonment for a period of 7 years and fine, thus, the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State, (2014) 8 SCC 273. He further submitted that since the accused No. 2 namely Alok Kumar Aggarwal who is the father of the petitioner has been previously arrested, so the petitioner has reasonable apprehension of his arrest at the hands of the respondent. He further submitted that Alankit Group of Companies is chaired by accused No. 2 Alok Kumar Aggarwal and interrogation qua the financial management and operations of the said group of companies has already been completed by the respondent agency and accused No. 2 Alok Kumar Aggarwal has already been released on bail by the Special Judge. He further submitted that there is no case or FIR in existence with any of the prosecuting agency which has registered any case pertaining t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s : (a) Siddharth Vs. State of UP vide Criminal Appeal No. 838 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5442/2021. (b) Arnesh Kumar Vs. State, (2014) 8 SCC 273. (c) P. Chidambaram Vs. Enforcement Directorate vide Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10493 of 2019. 21. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. Special Counsel for the respondent (ED) that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail as he has not been able to show that he has reasonable apprehension of arrest and the apprehension shown by him is vague and a mere fear does not warrant exercise of power U/s 438 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, he has relied upon Sh. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. It is further submitted by the Ld. Special Counsel that the grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation would hamper the effective investigation and the power U/s 438 Cr.P.C ought not to be exercised in favour of the petitioner and he relied upon P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24. Ld. Special Counsel for the respondent (ED) has also relied upon the judgment delivered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner had already been arrested who was lateron granted regular bail by the Special Judge and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been called time and again by the respondent (ED) and when he moved his anticipatory bail application before the Ld. Special Judge, it was opposed tooth and nail by the respondent, so it cannot be said that the apprehension in the mind of the petitioner in regard to his arrest is a mere fear or it is a vague apprehension. 26. Cognizance in the instant case has been taken by the Special Judge on 07.08.2021 and till date nothing fresh has been filed by the respondent in the form of supplementary complaint before the Special Judge and it is also not the case of the respondent that thereafter the petitioner has not been joining the investigation. Merely on the assumption of the respondent that till date what has been uncovered is may be the tip of the iceberg and the proceeds of the crime may be much higher, damocles sword cannot be allowed to hang over the head of the petitioner when there are no allegations against him of threatening any witness or tampering with the evidence or he is a flight risk or not co-operated in the investigat....