TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 13
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lodged following three F.I.Rs, namely: (a) FIR No. RC0932018S0007 dated 16.07.2018 u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC for committing fraud amounting to Rs.10.37 crores with the Bank of India against Amit Sarawgi, M/s Sarawgi Builders and promoters Pvt. Ltd., Swati Sarawgi, M/s Shriram Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others through their company M/s Sunbeam Dealers Pvt. Ltd. (b) FIR No.RC0932018S0008 dated 20.08.2018 u/s 120-B r/w 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC for committing fraud amounting to Rs.8.03 crores with the Bank of India against Vikash Khetawat, M/s Sarawgi Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Swati Sarawgi, M/s Shriram Comtrade Pvt. Ltd. and others through their firm M/s Global Traders. (c) FIR No.RC0932019S0001 dated 10.01.2019 u/s 120 B r/w 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, against M/s Badri Kedar Udyog Pvt.Ltd., Amit Sarawgi, Swati Sarawgi, M/s Sarawgi Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and unknown others for committing fraud amounting to Rs.12.84 crores with the Bank of India through their company M/s Shree Badri Kedar Udyog Pvt. Ltd. (ii) It has been further alleged that the amounts of fraud alleged in the aforesaid three FIRs amounted to Rs.31.24 crores, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Sarawgi Builders and promoters Pvt. Ltd. which was engaged in Real Estate business, and funds were diverted and transferred to the said company. (ix) On the strength of the above, complaint under section 45 read with section 44 of the PMLA 2002 for commission of offences defined under section 3 of the PMLA 2002 read with section 70 and punishable under section 4 of the PMLA was filed, being ECIR Case No.01/2022, by the Opposite Party. Said complaint was filed against following accused persons, namely- (i) Gyan Prakash Sarawgi (petitioner) (ii) Amit Sarawgi, son of Suresh Kumar Sarawgi (iii) Abhishek Agarwal, son of Ramesh Agarwal, (iv) Anish Agarwal, son of late Dhanranj Agarwal (v) Sarawgi Builder and Promoter Pvt. Ltd., represented through the petitioner Gyan Prakash Sarawgi (vi) Sunbeam Dealers Pvt. Ltd., represented through Amit Sarawgi (vii) Sriram Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., represented through Gyan Prakash Sarawgi (petitioner) (viii) M/s Global Traders (proprietorship firm), represented through Gyan Prakash Sarawgi (petitioner); (ix) Badri Kedar Udyog Pvt. Ltd., represented through Amit Sarawgi, and (x) M/s Dwarikadhish Udyog Pvt. Ltd., represented through G....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case in hand, Prevention of Corruption Act is not alleged as there is no FIR by the C.B.I under the P.C. Act and bank officials have also not been made accused. He submits that the Bank has not alleged against the petitioner. However, for recovery, the bank has already initiated proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Securitization, Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002. He further submits that the allegation with regard to diversion of the loan amount to another company and that could not amount mere misappropriation. He further submits that only the bank loan amounts have been utilized. Thus, there is no involvement of any tainted money and at best it is the case of fund diversion by the petitioner. He further submits that the rigors of section 45 of the Act is not attracted so far as this petitioner is concerned as he has cooperated in the investigation. He further submits that this Court while considering the bail application in another case has dealt elaborately about the section 45 of the Act as well as considering the other judgments have been pleased to grant bail on certain terms and conditions. He submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 402. Sub-section (6) of Section 212 of the Companies Act imposes similar twin conditions, as envisaged under Section 45 of the 2002 Act on the grant of bail, when a person is accused of offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act which punishes fraud, with punishment of imprisonment not less than six months and extending up to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained further. Indeed, Section 436A of the 1973 Code also contemplates that the relief under this provision cannot be granted mechanically. It is still within the discretion of the Court, unlike the default bail under Section 167 of the 1973 Code. Under Section 436A of the 1973 Code, however, the Court is required to consider the relief on case-to-case basis. As the proviso therein itself recognises that, in a given case, the detention can be continued by the Court even longer than one-half of the period, for which, reasons are to be recorded by it in writing and also by imposing such terms and conditions so as to ensure that after release, the accused makes himself/herself available for expeditious completion of the trial." He further submits that so far as the case of one of the petitioner in which bail has been granted, that was on the facts and circumstances of that case. In that case, the amount was only about rupees Fifty lacs whereas in the case in hand the amount is to the tune ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co accused of money laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorized, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [* * *] sub sectio....