TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 SV & ACB, Una (H.P.) 2 CBI/ACB/CH G-2015 RCCH @ 2015A002 15.01.2015 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Chandigarh 3. In Maulana Mohd Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P., (2012) 3 SCC 382, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, [10] It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. 4. In Paramjeet Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed, While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule, enquiries were initiated under PMLA against the accused persons after recording brief facts of scheduled offences in ECIR po. ECIR/03/JLZO/2017 dated 07.11.2017. A brief summary of the investigation culminating in the filing of this Prosecution Complaint is as follows: (2.1). Sh.Vikram Seth had operated bogus entities viz. M/s B.L. Seth Steels Ltd., M/s B.L. Seth Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s V. S. Traders, M/s V. S. Enterprises, M/s P. K. Enterprises, M/s Goel Sales Corporation, M/s Subhash Singh & Co., M/s Unique Traders, M/s Quality Lime Product, M/s R. Sales Pvt. Ltd., M/s U.R. Enterprises and M/s M. K. Traders in the name of himself and his family members viz. Suresh Seth (his brother), 129 Sunita Seth (his wife), Anita Seth (his sister-in-law), Shivam Seth (his son), Veena Handa (his sister), Anand Prakash Handa (his brother-in law), Meenakshi Handa (his niece). (2.2). Sh. Vikram Seth had availed 19 loans from Bank of Baroda, G.T. Road, Phagwara, fraudulently through criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and using forged documents as genuine in the names of business entities opened in his name and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge amount of funds have been siphoned off by Sh. Vikram Seth and others in the form of cash withdrawals as explained in para 7.4 of this complaint. As elaborated in the money trail, some cash withdrawals were found to be utilized for purchasing immovable properties. (2.7). Further, a large amount of loan funds/ cash withdrawn from fraudulent loan accounts of Bank of Baroda were diverted by Sh. Vikram Seth for making repayment of those old loans which were earlier availed by the BL Seth group from other banks/financial institutions as elaborated in detail in para 7.7 of this complaint. (2.8). Apart from the above mentioned 19 loans, in separate cases bearing F.I.R. No. 61/2013 dated 13.05.2013 and F.I.R. No. 86/2013 dated 30.07.2013, Sh. Vikram Seth along with others opened accounts of fake firms, created forged and fabricated mortgage through criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery of valuable security for the purpose of cheating and by using forged documents as genuine thereby causing a wrongful loss of Rs.89.5 Lacs and Rs. 2.7 Crores respectively to the Bank of Baroda, Phagwara and wrongful gain to the accused persons. (2.9). In para 7.6, 7.7 and 8 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a financial fraud. IV. Out of the proceeds of crime, as defined in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, so generated, some funds are directly or indirectly parked in immovable and movable assets in his name/ in the name of his business concerns and in the name of his family members as elaborated in Para 7.6 of this complaint V. A large amount of funds have been siphoned off through the accounts in his name/ in the name of his business concerns in the form of cash withdrawals as explained in para 7.4 of this complaint. As elaborated in the money trail, some cash withdrawals were found to be utilized for purchasing immovable properties. VI. Further, a large amount of loan funds/ cash withdrawn from fraudulent loan accounts of Bank of Baroda were diverted for making repayment of those old loans which were earlier availed by the BL Seth group from other banks/financial institutions as elaborated in detail in para 7.7 of this complaint and he has actively participated in diversion of funds. VII. It is clear that Sh. Shivam Seth who has acquired, is in possession and project/claim title of proceeds of crime in his name and in the name of busi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing of the charges. 12. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 15. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting Officer" should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer. 16. Given above, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac only (INR 1,00,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Five lacs (INR 5,00,000/-), to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the accused fails to appear in Court, then such surety is ....