TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against various individuals including the petitioner. In the said F.I.R., Umesh Gope has alleged, inter alia, that various individuals including petitioner fraudulently acquired Plot of land having an area of 1.00 Acre (One Acre) situated at Plot No. 28, Khata No. 27 at Village Gari, Chesire Home Road, Sadar, Ranchi. In respect of aforesaid F.I.R., investigation was carried out by Sadar Police Station and Final Form No. 10 of 2023 dated 25.01.2023 was filed, wherein it was concluded by the Investigating Officer that none of the accused persons were required to be sent up for trial, as the concerned case was a civil dispute. The said Final Form was taken on record by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and appropriate notice was issued to the Informant for his response. It has been submitted that in spite of the fact that in respect of aforesaid F.I.R., being F.I.R. No. 399 of 2022, Investigating Agency has submitted Final Form stating, inter alia, that as no case is made out, the Enforcement Directorate, on the basis of F.I.R. No. 399/2022 treating it to be a predicate offence registered an ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023. It has been further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Petitioner is a Businessman engaged in the business of Real Estate and Wholesale Trade since last 24 years in the State of Jharkhand and State of West Bengal and about 5000 people are gainfully employed in various companies owned and operated by Petitioner. On the strength of the above, it has been submitted that Petitioner, admittedly, is not at flight risk and since the prosecution complaint has already been filed and there is no allegation against the Petitioner of tampering with any evidence and/or trying to influence any witness etc., no purpose would be served in keeping the Petitioner in judicial custody and, even otherwise, Petitioner's participation in trial is duly secured, as he is not at flight risk. 5. With regard to hardships being faced by the Petitioner while in judicial custody, it has been submitted that Petitioner has availed various financial facilities for residential and commercial projects being undertaken by him and equal monthly installment (EMI) of over Rs. 8.00 crores per month is being paid to various Banks and financial institutions and, as yet, Petitioner has neither defaulted in repayment of loans nor any complaint has been filed by any of the fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely, Adarsh Heights Pvt. Ltd. and Chalice Real Estate LLP for an amount of Rs. 1.80 crore which has been paid through banking channels. It has been emphatically contended that it is the Petitioner who has been cheated by other accused persons who have created forged documents for selling the aforesaid land to the Petitioner and. In this regard, it has been further submitted that the petitioner being a bonafide purchaser no offence can be said to have been committed by him and in support of such submission, the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the Judgment of 'Md. Ibrahim & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors'., reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 (Para-23). 7. While referring to the definition of 'proceeds of crime, as defined under Section 2(u) of PMLA Act, 2002, it has been submitted that proceeds of crime means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. In this regard, it has been submitted that Petitioner, out of his own legal sources, purchased the land in question and the payment made by Petitioner in respect of the said land cannot be treated to be 'proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra). 9. With regard to Pugru Mauza land, attention of this Court has been drawn to the allegation made in the prosecution complaint, wherein it has been alleged that Petitioner purchased Pugru Mauza land in the year 2019 from Ashish Kumar Ganguli and 16 others for a total consideration of Rs. 5.00 crores, out of which only a sum of Rs. 2.5 crore was paid. It has been further alleged in the prosecution complaint that said land is 'Khas Mahal' land i.e. the land owned by State of Jharkhand, but Petitioner, despite knowing the aforesaid fact, purchased the said land in question. Refuting to aforesaid allegation levelled in the prosecution complaint, it has been argued that in respect of Pugru Mauza land also, there is no criminal proceeding before any court of law in which Petitioner is an accused and it has been submitted that ED cannot conduct any investigation of scheduled offence, but it is only required to conduct investigation as to whether any proceeds of crime has been generated on commission of a scheduled offence. With regard to nature of land being Khas Mahal land, Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Sr. Counsel vehemently relied upon an order passed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invited attention of this Court to the statements made in the prosecution complaint and has submitted that in the prosecution complaint, elaborate details have been given of the mode and manner in which Petitioner has been benefitted by dealing in lands which were disputed and is a creation on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. 11. In respect of Cheshire Home Road land, reference was made to Para 9.4 and 9.5 of the prosecution complaint by stating, inter alia, that one Rajesh Rai, son of Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad and, on the basis of said Power of Attorney, he prepared forged Sale Deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring an area of 1.00 Acre to one Punit Bhargav and, thereafter, Punit Bhargav sold the land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two Sale Deeds. While referring to aforesaid paragraphs, it has been submitted that the land admeasuring an area of 1.00 Acre at Cheshire Home Road was acquired in fraudulent manner by above persons including the Petitioner, who indulged in fabricating documents and forging records, on the basis of which, Power of Attorney was fraudule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been engaged in the business of real estate and wholesale trade, for the last 24 years in the state of Jharkhand and West Bengal. A further claim has been made that 5000 people are gainfully employed in various companies owned and operated by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was summoned by the investigating officer during the investigation and accordingly the Petitioner appeared on the following dates: 09.11.2022, 11.11.2022, 27.01.2023, 08.05.2023, 21.06.2023, and 31.07.2023 to 13.08.2023 (refer remand period). The Petitioner was arrested on 31.07.2023 and his statement was recorded during the period of remand from 31.07.2023 to 13.08.2023. The investigating agency filed the prosecution complaint in ECIR No. ENZO/10/2023 making the petitioner accused before the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi on 01.09.2023. The special judge PMLA Ranchi took cognizance on 04.09.2023. The Petitioner applied for Bail which was rejected by PMLA Special Judge on 18.09.2023. 16. At the outset it is observed that this Court is not persuaded to consider the prayer for bail on the Medical grounds for two reasons: Firstly, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner did not press this point at the time o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nit Bhargav. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that at the time of negotiation Punit Bhargav had given the impression that due to COVID he wanted to sell the aforesaid property and shift to his hometown Sasaram, Bihar. The land was sold, and the sale consideration of Rs 1.80 Cr has been duly received by the seller Punit Bhargav in his bank account. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the sale consideration paid by AHPL (i.e. Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and CRELLP (i.e. Rs. 77,40,000/-) were above the prevailing circle rate. The Petitioner has also provided to the investigating agency (ED) the sources from which the amount was earned by AHPL and CRELLP. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said amounts were duly reflected in the books of accounts of AHPL as well as CRELLP and also featured in the respective audited balance sheets of both the companies. Admittedly, there is no cash transaction involved in the said sale of the property. Prior to the purchase of the aforesaid property, the Petitioner claims to have caused a due diligence to be carried out in respect of this property by getting the sale deeds/documents, mutation papers, poss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....about the land deal with anyone except Puneet Bhargav which also establishes that the petitioner had no means to know about the forged document. It cannot be said that by purchasing a property under litigation any crime has been committed. At best such a purchase would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the Petitioner was neither involved in the creation of the forged deed nor had any knowledge of the alleged forged Deed No. 184 of 1948. The element of mens rea appears to be absent qua this petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he is a bonafide purchaser seems to be plausible. In respect of this land an FIR No. 399 of 2022 was registered by jurisdictional State Police for investigating the alleged cheating and forgery upon the complaint of one Umesh Kumar Gope. On the basis of FIR No. 399 of 2022 ED registered the ECIR No. RNZO/10/2023 on 07.03.2023. The police after investigation filed Final Form in FIR No 399 of 2022 on 25.01.2023 inter alia stating that the same is a civil dispute. However further investigation is presently going on and ED in its investigation in Para 10.6.6 @Pg. 79 of Prosecution Complain has concluded that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the said acts relate to a period prior to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. So far as the mutation in the name of the companies with which the petitioner is concerned, it is observed that on a plain reading of the statement of Manoj Kumar in its entirety would reveal that he had stated in detail the reasons as to why mutation was done in favour of those companies and that he had no reasons, at that relevant point of time, to doubt the transaction which was backed by sale deeds duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar at Ranchi. Another contention was raised by the Directorate of Enforcement with respect to the payment of consideration amount by the companies of the petitioner to Puneet Bhargav in lieu of execution of the sale deed being belated. It was argued that the two sale deeds were executed and registered on 1 April 2021 whereas payments were made subsequently on 05 April 2021 and 24 June 2021 by M/s Chalice Real Estate (Rs. 56,62,600/-) and Adarsh Heights Pvt Ltd (Rs. 1,01,57,400). Though such an allegation is not a part of the prosecution complaint, nor any statement has been brought through the notice of this court which makes such an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any worth. At present having regard to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner with respect to these two properties the only thing which can be deciphered is that the petitioner has purchased properties from persons who are alleged to be incompetent to sell the same. The rival contentions with respect to title over these lands cannot form a subject matter of the present application. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid or partly paid consideration amount for purchase of these properties and the people who have sold these properties to the petitioner have not been made accused in the present prosecution complaint. Both the properties are subject matter of litigation pending before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is important to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held starting from Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) that an acquittal, discharge from or quashment of the proceedings relating to the predicate offence will automatically result in dropping of the proceedings under PMLA and hence in absence of any predicate offence will result in denial of opportunity to the petitioner or other accused to prove their inn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a the land situated at Pugru and Siram prima facie do not make out an offence of money laundering and thus this Court is satisfied that there are reasons to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. Coming to the second of the twin condition it is held that prima facie with the available records it does not transpire that the petitioner has committed crime under the Act and / or is likely to commit any offence while on bail, as the prosecution has not produced any material which would make apparent that the petitioner might commit a similar offence. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedent save and except Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of the petitioner, the Court must necessarily consider this accept of the matter having regard to the antecedent of the petitioner, its propensities and the nature and manner in which the petitioner has alleged to have committed to offence. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Ranjit Singh Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294, which was also noted in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to ensure fairness, objectivity and accountability. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), also held that Section 436A of the Code can apply to offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance of the accused himself. In our opinion, Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court, in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, held that while ensuring proper enforcement of criminal law on one hand, the court must be conscious that liberty across human eras is as tenacious as tenacious can be. 29. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with....