TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ucted at the premises of co-accused Sunil Kumar Agrawal, C.A. of Babulal Agrawal where 230 bank passbooks were recovered. It is further alleged that Sunil Kumar Agrawal opened a bank account in the name of the villagers by using documents given by the villagers and forging their signatures. The money deposited in such bank accounts was channelized as share capital in M/s. Prime Ispat Limited through shell companies. 3. The role of the present applicant, who is the wife of Babulal Agrawal, is that she was an employee of M/s. Prime Ispat Limited, Raipur during the period 2007-2010. The brothers of Babulal Agrawal, namely Ashok Kumar Agrawal and Pawan Kumar Agrawal were the Directors of that company and the present applicant was appointed as Senior Manager (Finance) in M/s. Prime Ispat Limited, Raipur. According to the terms and conditions of her appointment order, her work was to maintain the cash of the company and to look after the day-to-day accounts which established that she was appointed in the company, wherein the laundered money of Babulal Agrawal was integrated. It is further stated that Babulal Agrawal appeared on behalf of his wife and his statement was recorded under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....P.C. It is further argued that in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the law enunciated would equally apply in anticipatory bail cases. He would also argue that the applicant has undergone kidney transplantation in the year 1999 and angioplasty in the year 2012. She is also suffering from accelerated hypertension, depression and anxiety. She is on lifelong immuno-suppressive and other supportive drugs and a certificate in this regard has been issued by the medical officer on 17.08.2023. Some medical prescriptions have been filed by the applicant to substantiate the contention. He would further argue that one more ECIR was registered against other co-accused persons. The anticipatory bail of those persons was rejected by the learned Sessions Court and thereafter, by this Court. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Cr.) No. 2106 of 2022 was kind enough to grant anticipatory bail to Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal. He would further submit that in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accused persons, namely Vimal Agrawal and Vinod Agrawal have been granted anticipatory bail by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the premises of Babulal Agrawal, Sunil Kumar Agrawal (CA) and other relatives and 230 passbooks of different persons were recovered. On 19.02.2010, the Economic Offence Wing, Raipur registered an FIR bearing No. 6 of 2010 under Section 13(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 3 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. On 10.01.2011, ECIR/01/NGR/2011 was registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA Act 2002. On 14.05.2018, the main accused-Babulal Agrawal was exonerated on identical allegations by the Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on the ground that no case of money laundering had been made out against him based on the allegations imputed in the prosecution complaint filed by the investigating agency. The order of the Adjudicating Authority has been challenged before the Appellate Authority. On 10.02.2020, the respondent registered an FIR against Babulal Agrawal in the addendum ECIR. The summons was issued to the applicant and she was permitted to appear through the authorized representative. On 04.01.2021 i.e. after 10 years, the respondent filed a prosecution complaint arraying the applicant as accused. The main accused, namely Babulal Agrawal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nces to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.]" 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Siddharth vs. State of U.P. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 in paragraphs 9 & 12 held as under: "9. We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge-sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on with the complaint/case by the ED for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is going on against respondent No. 1 for the scheduled offence in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once the enquiry/investigation against respondent No. 1 is going on for the offence under the Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 would be attracted. Section 45 of the Act, 2002 reads as under: "45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.- (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable 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 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 438 Cr.PC. Therefore, the observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under Section 438 Cr.PC is just contrary to the decision in the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan (supra) and the same is on misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah (supra). Once the rigour under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is unsustainable." In Pankaj Grover (supra) the High Court of Allahabad in para 38, 40 & 42 held as under: "38. Change in society has caused complete change in nature, cause, mode, rate and impact of crime on individual member of the society and society at large. Further, all and every stereotype of crime and criminals have completely changed and it is causing greater problem to criminal justice. Previously crimes were committed by un-socialised or mal-socialised or improperly socialised persons for whom all traditional criminologists have been of opinion that they belong to lower class, such criminals were committing crime in unorg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve to deal with such modern criminals and their criminality. A criminal of such modern criminality are respected and influential persons with position, status, standing and means thereby they are always in situation to influence proceeding in investigation and prosecution, tamper with the evidences and pressurise witnesses. 42. In socio-economic offences proceed of crimes are larger and further, offenders are economically sound, therefore, in releasing them on bail/anticipatory bail probability of abscondence not within country but beyond country is more probable. Usually socio-economic offenders abscond to some other country and after that it becomes difficult to bring them back and complete the criminal proceeding against them. Further, their monetary sound condition particularly proceed of crime obtained not by honest working but by deceiving others causes more prone situation for influencing witnesses and other evidences. Furthermore, status and position of offender provides opportunity to influence investigation and prosecution." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) in paras 43, 90, 100.5 & 100.6 held as under:- "43.The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 100.5. There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code. 100.6. There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth (supra)." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773 in para 5 of the report observed thus:- "5. The trial Courts and the High Courts will keep in mind the aforesaid guidelines while considering bail applications. The caveat which has been put by learned ASG is that where the accused have not cooperated in the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officers, nor answered summons when the Court feels that judicial custody of the accused is necessary for the completion of the trial, where further investigation including a possible recovery is needed, the aforesaid approach cannot give them benefit, something we agree with." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rana Kapoor vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4065 in paras 10, 11 & 12 held as under:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt neither participated nor cooperated in investigation. The concerned Special Court after taking cognizance on present criminal complaint ordered for summoning of the accused persons including the applicant. The investigating officer even after filing of present complaint did not apply for custody of the applicant. The co-accused Gautam Thapar was arrested consciously by the investigating officer during investigation and was denied bail by the Special Court and High Court and as such the applicant is standing on different footing from co-accused Gautam Thapar. The applicant was taken into custody due to dismissal of bail application vide order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the court of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-02 Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. The applicant primarily not seeking bail on merit but on basis of observation made by the Supreme Court in para no 65 of Satinder Kumar Antil decision and as such applicant is not required to pass the test of section 45 PMLA. The conditions as per section 45 PMLA would be applicable, had the applicant filed an application either under section 439 of the Code after arrest during investigation or under section 43....