TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pais, Senior Advocates with Mr. Parminder Singh, Mr. Rishi Agarwala, Mr. Kanav Vir Singh & Mr. Ashish Hira, Mr. Sharan Niranjan, Advocates for the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1173/2022 [9920525735]. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Mr. Bharat Beriwal & Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Advocates for the Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1278/2022 [9811156437]. Mr. Anand Nandan & Mr. D.S. Mishra, Advocates for Petitioner in BAIL APPLN. 1203/2022. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI with DSP Anshuman Saha, (IO) in all the petitions. J U D G M E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN 1. These six applications have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"], for grant of bail in connection with FIR No. RCBD1/2014/E/0004/CBI/BS & FC, registered on 19.02.2014, in Police Station Central Bureau of Investigation ["CBI"], under Sections 120B/409/411/420/467/468/ 471/474 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ["IPC"] and Sections 4/5 read with Section 6 of the Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 ["PCMCS Act"]. As the six applications arise out of the same FIR, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The prese....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....332 crores. h. The present applicants were not named as accused in the original charge sheet, although some of them were referred to therein:- * Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal [inter alia in paragraphs 171, 172, 173, 206, 207, 208 and 212]. * Mr. Subhash Agarwal and Mr. Rajesh Agarwal are the Chairman and Managing Director of ARSS Infrastructure Projects Limited ["ARSS"] respectively, which is mentioned inter alia in paragraph 174. * Mr. Mohan Lal Sehjpal was a director of Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited ["PIPL"]. PIPL and Mr. Mohan Lal Sehjpal find mention inter alia in paragraphs 181 to 190, 194 and 196 to 203. i. As far as the present applicants are concerned, they have been named as accused only in a supplementary charge sheet filed on 31.12.2021. A list of 265 witnesses and 307 documents has been filed alongwith the supplementary charge sheet. j. The applicants were all arrested a few days prior to filing of the supplementary charge sheet, i.e. on 22.12.2021. Five other individuals were also arrested on the same day. The applicants were remanded to police custody for a period of two days [from 23.12.2021 to 25.12.2021], and have been in judicial custody since th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of work were prepared to justify receipt of such funds. The Work Order cum Agreements executed for purported execution of work were also bogus. Shri Akash Agarwal: In furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the accused promoters/directors of Pearls Group, Shri Akash Agarwal dishonestly and fraudulently facilitated diversion/misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 161.44 Crores through 05 companies controlled by him. He dishonestly received the funds from M/s. PACL Limited (erstwhile M/s. PACL India Limited) on the pretext of land development I earthwork, but no land development work was done and fake / bogus invoices showing execution of work were prepared to justify receipt of such funds. Shri Mannoj Kumar Jain: He was the main Promoter/Director of M/s. Jain Infra-projects Limited. In furtherance of criminal conspiracy with the accused promoters/directors of Pearls Group, Shri Mannoj Kumar Jain dishonestly and fraudulently facilitated diversion/misappropriation of funds to the tune of Rs. 268.73 Crores through M/s. Jain Infra-projects Limited. He dishonestly received the funds from M/s. PACL Limited (erstwhile M/s. PACL India Limited) on the pretext of land development, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions of the Roster Bench dated 18.05.2022 and orders passed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. It may be mentioned that Mr. Bhardwaj was instructed by the Investigating Officer ["IO"], who was present in Court throughout the hearing. Submissions 6. I have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Mr. Dayan Krishnan and Mr. Trideep Pais, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants in BAIL APPLNs. 1173/2022, 1172/2022, 716/2022 and 1382/2022, and Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan and Mr. Anand Nandan, learned counsel for the applicants in BAIL APPLNs. 1278/2022 and 1203/2022 respectively, in support of the present applications. Mr. Bhardwaj also made detailed submissions. 7. The principal arguments urged on behalf of the applicants were as follows[1]:- a. The case against the applicants does not concern the main charge of running a CIS or fraudulently inducing investors to invest in the projects of PACL/PGF. In fact, the applicants have not themselves collected any money from investors and the offences mentioned in the FIR cannot be made out against them. The applicants are accused, not of any direct connection with PGF/PACL, but in respect of transactions entered into by com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ps were taken and the applicants were arrested only on 22.12.2021. f. The allegations being based upon documentary evidence which is already in the possession of the CBI, learned counsel submitted that the question of tampering with the evidence does not arise. In the cases of Mr. Rajesh Agarwal and Mr. Subhash Agarwal, Mr. Nayar mentioned that ARSS is now undergoing insolvency proceedings and the documents of the company are in the possession of the resolution professional and not of the applicants. g. The applicants, despite the long period for which investigations into the affairs of PGF/PACL have been proceeding, have not made any attempt to flee from justice. h. In the cases of Mr. Mannoj Kumar Jain, Mr. Mohan Lal Sehjpal and Mr. Subhash Agarwal, it is urged that they were summoned to the CBI office by virtue of notices under Section 41A of the CrPC dated 28.11.2021 and were arrested soon thereafter on 22.12.2021, despite their cooperation with the IO. Learned counsel submitted that no material has been placed on record to justify the arrest of the concerned individuals despite the fact that they were served notices under Section 41A of the CrPC, which specifically provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ingh, ought to be released also. m. My attention was also drawn to an order of the Special Court dated 16.04.2022 whereby one Mr. Chander Bhushan Dhillon, a director of PGF, was granted bail. In this order, the Special Court has taken note of the number of witnesses cited, the fact that the accused has been in custody since 22.12.2021, his cooperation with the investigation and also accepted his submission that he is not at flight risk. Learned counsel submitted that the same considerations would apply a fortiori to the present applicants. 8. In support of these applications, learned counsel for the applicants cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466, Dataram Singh vs. State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22, Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 and P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791. 9. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Special Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail on the following grounds:- a. Mr. Bhardwaj referred to the grave nature of the charges against the applicants, and emphasised that the present cases ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the person at trial. Deprivation of liberty prior to conviction is a great hardship and should only be resorted to if release on bail is likely to prejudice the trial.[3] b. Even in the case of economic offences, the seriousness of the charge cannot be the sole ground for denial of bail.[4] c. Although it was held in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 439 and Nimmagadda Prasad (2013) 7 SCC 466 that economic offences must be viewed differently, even for the purpose of bail, even in those cases, while denying bail at a stage prior to filing of charge sheet, the Court granted liberty to the accused to seek bail after the charge sheet had been filed.[5] d. It is made clear in P. Chidambaram that (2020) 13 SCC 791, even in case of grave economic offences, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Economic offences may fall within the category of grave offences, but this will only be one of the several considerations for grant or refusal of bail. e. An allegation of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses must be supported by some material. f. It is relevant to consider whether the accused was arrested during investigation, when they would have h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shed. It may also be noted in this connection that the documents and account related information have been collected by various agencies, including SEBI, and will be available from those agencies also. There is no material placed on record to support the contention urged on behalf of the CBI that the applicants are likely to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. Following the judgments cited above, such a contention cannot be accepted without a strong foundational basis, particularly when almost eight years have passed since the FIR was registered and five and a half years have passed since the original charge sheet was filed, during which period, the applicants were at liberty. d. All the accused were served with various notices from time to time for production of documents and appearance before the IO. There is no substantial allegation that the accused failed to comply with any such notices during the period of investigation. e. Significantly, it has been stated by the CBI in its written submissions that five of the six applicants herein [with the exception of Mr. Akash Agarwal] were issued notices under Section 41A of the CrPC on 28.11.2021. The statutory provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Bhardwaj had, in the course of arguments, laid considerable emphasis upon the grant of bail to Mr. Sukhdev Singh, the Managing Director of PACL, and the denial of bail to Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya, I have decided the present applications independently of those orders, as the said orders concern directors of PGF/PACL, whose roles are at considerable variance from the roles attributed to the present applicants by the CBI itself. Suffice it to state that while rejecting Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya's application for bail, the Supreme Court specifically noted that the matter involved an alleged criminal conspiracy in furtherance of which "the Directors of M/s PGF Limited and M/s PACL Limited are alleged to have illegally obtained a benefit of Rs 45,184 crores at the expense of 5.46 crore investors spread all over the country from sham land transactions." The Court proceeded on the basis of roles attributed to the applicants therein, as elucidated in the affidavit of the CBI. The applicants in the present case, in contrast, are not directors of PGF/PACL and their roles are required to be independently considered in connection with their applications for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t before the Court. d. Each of the applicants will give their mobile numbers to the IO and ensure that the said mobile numbers are kept in working condition and are reachable at all times. e. Each of the applicants will attend the Special Court on each and every date of hearing, unless exempted by the Special Court under exceptional circumstances. f. Each of the applicants will report to the Officer-in-Charge of the police station having jurisdiction over their place of residence on the first and third Monday of every calendar month at 04:00 PM, and will be released within one hour, after completion of necessary formalities. g. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence any of the witnesses in the case or act in any other manner prejudicial to the trial. 17. It is made clear that these observations are only for the purpose of disposal of the present bail applications, and will not prejudice the parties in the trial. 18. The applications are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. 19. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent(s) electronically. ....