TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 987
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Economic Offence Wing / Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur against one Babulal Agrawal (IAS) for alleged commission of offence defined under Sections 13 (1) (e) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During search conducted by Income Tax Department, Babulal Agrawal was found in possession of huge cash and jewelleries. During investigation, Sunil Agrawal, Chartered Accountant of Babulal Agrawal, was found in possession of 230 bank pass-books of different persons, created 13 shell companies, which are controlled by Sunil Agrawal, Chartered Accountant of Babulal Agrawal, and M/s Prime Ispat Ltd. It also came to knowledge in investigation that Chartered Accountant Sunil Agrawal played significant role in opening of 446 bank accounts of various persons who are residents of rural areas. Huge money was deposited in those 446 bank accounts opened at Pandri and Ramsagarpara branches of Union Bank of India, Raipur within short period. Money from these accounts was firstly transferred to 13 shell companies and thereafter to M/s Prime Ispat Pvt. Ltd. as share capital. Total amount invested in M/s Prime Ispat Pvt. Ltd. through 13 shell companies was Rs. 39,61,93,598/- approximately. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781; Managing Director, Castrol India Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2018) 17 SCC 275; Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & ors reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668; Siddharth v State of UP reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 615; SLP (Crl) No.7665/2021 Shyam Sunder Singh v State of Jharkhand; State of Maharashtra vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah reported in (1969) 3 SCC 904. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel for applicants that allegation is that amount deposited in benami bank accounts was invested in 13 shell companies. From 13 shell companies further investment is shown in M/s Prime Ispat Pvt. Ltd. as share capital. M/s Prime Ispat Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, but complaint is not filed against M/s Prime Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Unless and until company is arrayed as accused, Directors of company cannot be prosecuted. Investigation is complete and based on summons, applicants are required to appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction in complaint case. Hence, they be extended benefit of anticipatory bail as arrest of applicants is not necessary. Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.5191....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d) it has come that amount deposited in 446 benami bank accounts was given by applicants. Applicants in connivance with others are indulged in committing offence under the Act of 2002 which involves huge amount of Rs. 39,61,93,598/-. He further contended that the Courts misinterpreting judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India reported in (2018) 11 SCC 1, started granting bail as if entire Section 45 of the Act of 2002 was struck down. In fact, only part of Section 45 of the Act of 2002 was struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court holding it to be unconstitutional. Later on, Section 45 has been amended by Amendment Act of 2018. After amendment of Section 45 in the year 2018, vires of Section 45 of the Act of 2002 was again challenged and is pending consideration before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Unless and until amended provisions of Section 45 of the Act of 2002, under challenge, is declared to be unconstitutional, it cannot be made inapplicable. Section 45 of the Act of 2002 imposes twin conditions for release of accused committed offence under the Act of 2002. Hon'ble Supreme Court recently vide order dated 4.1.2022 in Cr.A. No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 Crore approximately through shell companies. In the statement of Sunil Agrawal, Chartered Accountant, recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002, he has stated that he was instrumental in opening of 446 benami bank accounts in Pandri and Ramsagarpara branches of Union Bank of India, Raipur and money which was deposited in these accounts was given by applicants to his employee for depositing the same in benami bank accounts. From the contents of complaint prima facie it appears that it is an organized economic crime. Involvement of applicants is prima facie appearing in view of definition provided under Section 3 of the Act of 2002. 9. Submission of learned counsel for applicants that Section 45 of the Act of 2002 is struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra) is partially correct. Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned ruling had partly struck down Section 45 (1) of the Act of 2002 so far as it imposes two further conditions for grant of bail to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India for the reasons mentioned therein. Subsequent to passing of order striking down part of provision under Section....