TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 IPC against M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Ltd. (GIPL) and its promoter Sri Sanjay Bhati and other unknown persons / entities between 12.02.2019 and 25.04.2019, on the allegations that the aforesaid Company had lured the public to invest in its schemes with the promise of good returns, but the Company did not fulfill its promise and did not return even the invested amounts. 4. The applicant is not named as an accused in any of the aforesaid FIRs or in the ECIR. 5. The E.D. recorded the statements of the applicant under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PMLA'), on 22.10.2019, 23.10.2019 and 20.10.2020. 6. The ED filed a complaint on 17.02.2021 against one Manoj Tyagi. 7. The applicant's name was included as an accused person for the first time in the supplementary complaint filed by the E.D. on 13.01.2022 stating that statements of some of the complainants in the F.I.Rs. were recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and gist of their statements is that they had invested in the Bikebot scheme of GIPL and did not receive the returns promised by the company. 8. The applicant was arrested on 21.07.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the applicant. 12. Snajay Bhati stated that there were around 1,70,000 investors in Bikebot who had paid Rs. 2,800 Crores approximately and approximately Rs. 1800- 2000 Crores had been returned to them and about 10,000 bikes had been purchased. E-bikes were launched on 11.01.2019 at New Delhi and the applicant was also present at that time. Sanjay Bhati further stated that accountant Chauhan and CA team reported to Balwant. Technical aspects viz. GPS, app development, customer care, bike operations, etc. were looked after by Tarun Sharma. Property development & purchase was looked after by Anil Saha, B. N. Tiwari (the applicant), Vijendra Hudda and Montu (Satinder) Bhasin, etc. 13. As regards, the profit model of Bikebot, Sanjay Bhati claimed that on each bike, the company was saving Rs. 12,000/- even after meeting the registration, accessories, insurance, etc. Further, after one year, the bike would become the asset of the company. The rental plan for bikes started at Rs.10/- for the 1st Km and subsequently Rs. 4/- per km + Re.1/- per minute for travelling time and Re.1/- per min extra for the waiting time. 14. Statements of Manoj Kumar Tyagi were recorded under Section 50 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 and had arrived at a settlement agreement on 29.01.2019. 16.The applicant's statement was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA on 22.10.2019, 23.10.2019 and 20.03.2020 wherein he inter-alia stated that Mars Envirotech Limited was engaged in construction and operation of solid waste management / waste to energy plants. Vijender Singh had introduced the applicant to Sanjay Bhati in Sep-2018 and had told that he was doing business with Sanjay Bhati and SanjayBhati needed electric bikes immediately. Sanjay Bhati had also said that there was too much pollution in Delhi and Ghaziabad due to burning of "puwal" and waste materials and he wanted to install a mini power plant in his fields in Dadri. The applicant had talked to Sanjay Bhati a couple of times regarding the supply of Garvit branded e-bikes to be manufactured by the applicant's company Accord Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd. An agreement was entered into between Accord Hydraulics and GIPL for supply of e-bikes. Another agreement was entered into between GIPL and Mars Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. for supply of biomass/ multi fuel Power Plant for which GIPL had paid Rs. 3 Crores to Mars Envirotech. Supply of equipment was made in excess of the paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cant was close to Sanjay Bhati and became his consultant and remained connected to GIPL. After Sanjay Bhati resigned, the applicant's influence increased with continued interaction with Karanpal and other associates of Sanjay Bhati. As per Sanjay Bhati himself, the applicant was one of the key decision makers for property purchase and development of GIPL. Also, cash collected at GIPL office was given twice to the applicant. After accounts were opened at Noble Cooperative Bank, the decisions regarding payments were usually taken by V. K. Sharma, Vijender Hooda, Manoj Tyagi and the applicant, who used to present the cheques to Sanjay Bhati for his signatures. 19. The E.D. has further alleged that the Special Audit was conducted at the instance of the applicant, but he merely provided the Tally data and bank transaction details and he did not provide all the relevant documents for the audit. 20. The complaint further alleges that after December 2018, the entire management of ITVL was being carried out by the applicant as a close confidante of Mr. Sanjay Bhati. The applicant was introduced by the Management of GIPL in the launch event of e-bikes of Bikebot, as an investment advisor a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or- 63, Noida. This property was sold off to one M/s Cimco Projects Ltd., ostensibly on the directions of the applicant through Pushpendra Singh, who remained a Director in the company and resigned immediately after the sale was effected. 25. Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty, the learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the E.D. had registered the ECIR on 29.06.2019 and statement of applicant was recorded under Section 50 PMLA on 22.10.2019, 23.10.2019 and 20.03.2020, but he was not taken into custody. The applicant was taken in custody in connection with the scheduled offences on 26.02.2021, and although the applicant was named as accused in supplementary compliant filed on 30.01.2022, the E.D. did not seek his custody when the applicant was already in custody. The E.D. took the applicant into custody only on 21.07.2022, after he was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.07.2022. 26. Sri. Chakravarty submitted that one of the co-accused persons Manoj Tyagi, has been granted bail by means of an order dated 26.04.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6190 of 2022. Anther co-accused Vijendra Singh, who has also been made an accused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nrealistic and exorbitant returns were promised without there being any corresponding resource generating and meaningful business. Essentially, it was a ponzi scheme which was bound to fail. When the investors demanded the returns, they were handed over cheques, which were dishonored. As per the statements of the witnesses, the applicant was one of the key decision makers for property purchase and GIPL and appropriated the cash at the GIPL office. The applicant was involved in decision regarding payments made from the GIPL's account in the Nobel Cooperative Bank. A special audit of one of the companies was conducted at the behest of the applicant, who deliberately withheld the relevant documents from the charted Accountant, who is a witness in the matter. After December, 2018, the applicant managed the affairs of the Independent TV Ltd. on behalf of Sanjay Bhati as the latter's close confidante. 30. Sri Tripathi has submitted that there is evidence to demonstrate that the applicant was introduced as an investment advisor and the Trustee of the ITV and nominee of the Mr.Sanjay Bhati at the companies event on 19/20.01.2019. All the employees were mandated to report to the applicant.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relatable to the scheduled offence; 35. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others versus Union of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - 251. The "proceeds of crime" being the core of the ingredients constituting the offence of money-laundering, that expression needs to be construed strictly. In that, all properties recovered or attached by the investigating agency in connection with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under the general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of crime. There may be cases where the property involved in the commission of scheduled offence attached by the investigating agency dealing with that offence, cannot be wholly or partly regarded as proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the 2002 Act - so long as the whole or some portion of the property has been derived or obtained by any person "as a result of" criminal activity relating to the stated scheduled offence. To be proceeds of crime, therefore, the property must be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, "as a result of" criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. To put it differently, the vehicle used in comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r one year, the bike would become the asset of the company. The rental plan for bikes started at Rs.10/- for the 1st Km and subsequently Rs.4/- per km + Re.1/- per minute for travelling time and Re.1/- per minute extra for the waiting time. 38. As per the statement of the main accused Sanjay Bhati, even after failure of the scheme, approximately Rs. 1800- 2000 Crores had been returned to the investors. The role of the applicant is alleged to be property development & purchase. There is nothing on record to prima facie establish that the applicant was instrumental behind planning the scheme. 39. It is said that cash collected at GIPL office was given twice to the applicant but nothing has been said about the amount of cash paid to the applicant or the nature of the payment. 40. The E.D. claims that Rs. 25 Crores have been transferred to M/s Mars Envirotech Ltd. towards allotment of Cumulative Compulsorily Convertible Preference Shares (CCCPS) but the allotment process is flawed and manipulated. The applicant claims that CCCPS have been provided in accordance with the provisions of Sections 23, 42, 55, 62(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2013, read with Companies Prospectus and Allotmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... If there is any iota of doubt the benefit shall have to be given to the accused." 45. Prima facie it appears that the applicant has been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. It is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. 46. This fact is also relevant that the E.D. had registered the ECIR on 29.06.2019 and statement of applicant was recorded under Section 50 PMLA on 22.10.2019, 23.10.2019 and 20.03.2020, but he was not taken into custody. The applicant remained in custody in connection with the scheduled offences since 26.02.2021, and although the applicant was named as accused in supplementary compliant filed on 30.01.2022, the E.D. did not seek his custody even during that period. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 18772 of 2021, 18775 of 2021, 19022 of 2021, 19214 of 2021 and 19379 of 2021 filed by the applicant for grant of bail in scheduled offences had been rejected by this Court, but he was granted bail in all the scheduled offences by means of an order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applying the principle of parity, though the Ho....