TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1702
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2 Based on the complaint filed by IndusInd Bank, Bombay, FIR 365 of 2015 dated 24th December, 2015 came to be registered against M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Private Limited, M/s. Charbhuja Diamonds Private Limited, M/s. Kanika Gems Private Limited and their directors Anil Kumar Mulchand Toshniwal, Sunilkumar Chokhara and Anil Chokhara under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is alleged that these companies and their directors had illegally remitted Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 3,04,35,77,609 (US $ 4,90,11,147.07) to abroad by submitting forged bills of entries to the IndusInd Bank at its Opera House and Fort Branch, in the form of import advance and post import remittances. Often under Section 420 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. Kanika Gems Pvt. Ltd. He stated to cover the Hawala activity applicant and his associates were indulging in the business of import of diamonds and for this purpose, they were receiving funds through fictitious companies controlled by the applicant. 4 The statement of Sunil Kumar Chokhara, Director of M/s. Shree Charbhuja Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. came to be recorded under Section 50(2) of the PML Act, 2002. He stated, he was made one of the directors of M/s. Shree Charbhuja Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Yogeshwar Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. as per the directions of Shri Vijay Kothari (Applicant herein). 5 Statement of Khushboo Kothari, wife of Shri Vijay Kothari (Applicant) came to be recorded under Section 50(2) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80,28,114.38 on account of advance import however, there were no import documents submitted to the IndusInd Bank. Investigation has revealed that accused also remitted funds of Rs. 380,43,31,875/- on account of post import payments on the strength of forged/fake bills of entry and invoices submitted to the bank. That as such, amount totalling to Rs. 518,23,59,962/- (US$ 71206789.99) has been siphoned to foreign shores by Shri Vijay Kothari (Applicant) and Anil Chokhara in the guise of import. Investigation has revealed accused companies and its associate companies were used as a vehicle to launder proceeds of crime and integrate them so as to project the tainted property as untainted property, which is proceeds of crime within the meaning ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... NBW was issued against the applicant. At-last, applicant appeared before the complainant on 17th March, 2019 and surrendered himself. 12 Applicant is seeking bail on the grounds; that, investigation is over; punishment for the often under Section 3 is seven years; that applicant is not accused in predicate offences. That even otherwise vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 07/17, properties belonging to him but registered in his family members are attached. It is submitted that presence of the applicant for the trial can always by secured by imposing conditions. It is submitted that save and except statement of Anil Chokhara (co-accused), there is no other incriminating material against the applicant. It is submitted that applicant shall ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 15 Thus, it is evident that above factors must be taken into account while determining whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences. 16 In the case at hand, the applicant in connivance with Anil Chokhara, remitted funds amounting to Rs. 137,80,28,114.38 on account of advance import and deliberately did not submit import documents to the bank and as such, managed to siphon of huge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicant floated number of companies/firms and has generated huge funds which he managed through various bank accounts of the bogus companies, outside the company. So also, applicant was not available for investigation for considerable period. His conduct, therefore, cannot be overlooked. Yet investigation is in progress. Possibility of feelling the country, cannot be ruled out, in the back-drop of this conduct. 19 Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 starts with non-obstante, clause which indicates that provisions laid down in Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 imposes following two conditions for grant of bail to any ....