TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A has also been filed by the investigating agency. It is submitted that the first bail application was rejected by this court only on the ground that investigation is not complete and applicant/accused may influence the fair course of investigation but now the circumstances have changed as complaint u/s 45 of PMLA has been filed by the investigating agency on which the court has taken cognizance and accused persons have been summoned after taking all necessary clarifications from the department. It is submitted that trial in the instant matter is likely to consume considerable time as the instant matter involves voluminous record i.e. 213 number of documents running into 6201 pages and the investigating agency has cited 35 witnesses and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. It is submitted that applicant/accused is languishing in j.c since 28.07.2021 and maximum punishment for the offence u/s 3 and 4 of PMLA against the applicant/accused is upto seven years and there is no impediment in grant of bail in the offences punishable below seven years. It is submitted that magnitude of the offence is thus not to be determined on the basis of amount involve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erated with the investigating agency in the instant matter as well as in ACB charge-sheet. It is further submitted that all the documentary evidence has already been seized off from the applicant/accused, hence, there are no chances of tampering with the documents nor there is any likelhood of accused influencing the witnesses as statement of witnesses has already been recorded and the same are part of judicial record. It is submitted by Ld. defence counsel that the prosecution cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by firstly claiming that the applicant/accused has admitted several aspects and then alleging that applicant/accused was evasive while giving replies, therefore, the said allegation against the applicant/accused does not hold water and cannot come to the aid of the department. It is further submitted by Ld. defence counsel that applicant/accused has potent defence which he shall be able to prove during trial and granting him bail shall enable him to better prepare himself for the said trial. It is submitted that the allegations have been levelled in the present matter without even investigating the version of the applicant/accused and at the stage of grant o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted that statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA are to be tested during trial and is not a credible evidence to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of the alleged offence and also to deny bail to the applicant/accused as there is no evidence against the applicant/accused and ED is merely relying upon mere allegations having no material at hand. Ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Paras Mal Lodha v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8676. It is further submitted by Ld. counsel for applicant/accused that statement of accused recorded u/s 50 of PMLA after his arrest is not admissible in law laid down in Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. It is further submitted that even the disclosure statement of co-accused persons cannot be used against the applicant/accused as disclosure statements are also inadmissible in law. Ld. counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Gaurav Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement in Bail Application no. 484/2015, Rakesh Manekchand Kothari v. UOI in Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 4247/2015 decided on 03.08.2015, Suresh @ Bobby v. State Bail ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rl. M. C. No. 2829/2016 decided on 08.08.2016, Rajender Singh Sethia v. State 1988 Cri.L.J 749, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI 2013 7 SCC 466, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Sai Chandrasekhar v. Directorate of Enforcement 2021 SCC OnLIne Del 1081, Shivani Rajiv Saxena v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr Bail Application no. 2164/2017 decided on 15.12.2017, Mahesh Kumar v. CBI 2013 (204) DLT 126, Munawar v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others W. P (Criminal) No. 62/2021, Suresh Kalmadi v. CBI 2012 (1) JCC 734, H. B. Chaturvedi v. CBI 2010 (3) JCC 2109, Directorate of Enforcement v. Gagan Dhawan Crl. Rev. Petition no. 107/2018 D.O.D 06.08.2019, Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Srujana Mantena v. Directorate of Enforcement High Court of Telangana in Crl. Rev. Petition no. 635/2021 D.O.D 02.03.2021, D. K. Shivakumar v. E. D Bail Application No. 2484/2019, Ashok Dhingra v. NCT of Delhi 2001 (1) JCC (SC) 178, Manish Narula v. State Crl. M. A. No. 13050/2006, Sandeep Jhunjhunwala v. CBI Bail Application no. 2439/2017 DOD 21.12.2017, Renu Ghosh v. State (CBI) 64 (1996) DLT, K. Narayana Rao v. CBI 2009 (4) JCC 25....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... capital of Rs. 3 crores from Punjab and Sind Bank. It is submitted that out of the total loan amount, the term loan amounting to Rs. 227.01 crores was disbursed by J&K Bank in favour of M/s AHPL and thereafter, M/s AHPL turned defaulter and failed to repay the loan amount and the bank in furtherance of restructuring company's loan amount took a decision wherein a funded interest term loan of Rs. 165.82 crores was sanctioned by all member banks in favour of the company out of which J&K Bank sanctioned amount of Rs. 47.21 crores but since M/s AHPL failed to repay the loan amount, J&K Bank declared the loan account of the company as NPA on 30.06.2018 and total outstanding towards J&K Bank is Rs. 289.28 crores and total NPA of each of the banks as on 18.07.2017 was Rs. 902.22 crores. It is submitted that out of the total loan amount of Rs. 810 crores, amount of Rs. 781 crores was routed through the escrow account maintained with J&K Bank, Ansal Plaza. It is submitted that out of total Rs. 781 crores received in the said Escrow account, Rs. 145.5 crores was transferred to turn key contractor M/s Ambience (P) Ltd, Rs. 66 crores to M/s AHPL and Rs. 11.5 crores to Ambience Ltd. and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the matter of Virupakshappa Gouda & anr v. State of Karnataka & anr (2017) 5 SCC 406, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2005) 2 SCC 42, Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129, Sunil Dahiya v. State ( Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5566, Abdul Azeez P. V v. National Investigation Agency (2014) 16 SCC 543, Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (2013) 3 SCC 77, CBI v. R. S. Pai & Ors (2002) 5 SCC 82, Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770, Suresh Mahata v. State of West Bengal 1997 SCC OnLine Cal 23, Vipul Shita Prasad Agarwal v. State of Gujarat & anr (2013) 1 SCC 197, Narendra Kumar Amin v. CBI & Ors (2015) 3 SCC 417, State v. Jaspal Singh Gill ( 1984) 3 SCC 555, State of U.P v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati 2020 SCC OnLine SC 843, Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain (1998) 2 SCC 105, State of Maharashtra v. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao 1989 Supp (2) SCC 605, Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigation is no longer pending and after referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2012 CRI. L.J. 702, the Trial Court allowed the bail application and released the applicant on bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that bail should not have been granted and the filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that its observations in the Sanjay Chandra case (ibid) "cannot be made applicable in each and every case for grant of bail." The following extract of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant and reproduced herein for reference: "On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the cha....