TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....22 under Section 406, 420, 477- A, 120(B) and 114 of IPC read with section 66(D) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 read with section 447 of the Companies Act. on suitable terms and conditions. The common law and facts being involved in all the applications are same and one, therefore, to avoid repetition of facts and to save time of the Court, all the applications are being dealt with and decided by this common order. 2. The ld advocate for bail application no.642/2022 and bail application no.643/2022 has argued that the offence alleged u/s 406, 420 477- A 120(B) and 114 of IPC read with section 66(D) of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 read with section 447 of the Companies Act is registered against applicants-accused. He has argued that the accused of bail application no.643/2022 is a lady. He has argued that the accusations against applicants are that they have not filed return. He has argued that in the year 2018 the Income Tax Department had conducted raid and it was unearth Havalakand and pursuant thereto, case under Money Laundering Act was registered by Enforcement Directors in the year 2018 against one Chinese citizen. He has argued that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s argued that other two directors of bail application no.642/2022 are gents. He has argued that there is no concerned to applicant with havala and Chinese company. He has argued that it has not been clarified that why the company of applicants has been connected with the case for the year 2018 of Delhi. Therefore, he has requested to allow the present bail applications. 3. The ld advocate for the bail application no.644/2022 has argued that the applicant is innocent and he has not committed the alleged offence, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further argued that as per the FIR this applicant has been shown as accused no.4. He has argued that this applicant is a Chartered Accountant and he had appointed as C.A and he had audited account for the year 2014-15 and 2015-2016. He has argued that this applicant is not a director and contended that the role of the C.A. is to audit the accounts. He has argued that in this case the complainant is a Registrar Of Company. He has argued that this complaint has not been filed by the Enforcement Director as well as Bank. He has argued that there is no complaint under the provision of FERA. He has argued that it has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advocate for the bail application no.642/2022 and 643/2022 has re-argued that E.D. is investigating since 2018 but no action initiated against present applicants by the E.D. He has argued that there is correspondence between 2018 to 2022. He has argued that E.D. has read news and initiated action. He has argued that inquiry under the Company Law is going on. He has argued that documentary evidence is with the Registrar of Company. Therefore, there is no question to tamper. Therefore, requested to allow. 6. I have gone through the police papers as well as heard the learned advocates for both the parties and carefully gone through the documents produced by the applicants concerned. On carefully perusing the police papers, it appears that this complaint had been filed by the Assistant Registrar of the Company. As per the complaint, it reveals that the complainant had received confidential information that Income Tax Department had unearthed hawala-kand with one Chinese company and other cases are filed. The complaint also reveals that pursuant to the news, it came to the light of the Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, Delhi that Savariya International Pvt. Ltd. located at Surat is bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar as the bail application no.642/2022 is concerned, they are being the directors since long and considering the averments of the complaint about huge income of the company and accounts is concerned, the presence of applicants of bail application no.642/2022 is required. Therefore, considering facts and circumstance of the present case, there is a difference in balance-sheet is to be investigated and as per the facts of the complaint itself shows that there may be a breach of FERA and rules of RBI by the directors of the company. Therefore, contention of the Ld. adv. for the bail application no.642/2022 that there is no any kind of ingredients of cheating and breach of trust is not tenable looking to the papers. Hence the bail application no.642/2022 is not required to be allowed. Therefore, contention raised by the ld. Adv for the bail application no.642/2022 that there is no ingredients of breach of trust or cheating etc. is not tenable, looking to the accusations levelled against them. There is no need to give detailed findings and elaborate reasons considering the police papers. If I pass detail order, then it will adversely affect and prejudice to the rights of the parties as ....