TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner earlier moved before this Court in B.A. No. 10056 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2024. He submitted that the petitioner, namely, Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal has been arrayed as accused no. 7 in the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44 (2) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the commission of the offences defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the main complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Raj Kumari and Genda Ram in which the petitioner was not an accused. He further submitted that the said ECIR case was registered on the basis of information received from FIR No. 13/2019, dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur and subsequently Final Report has been submitted by the ACB, Jamshedpur bearing No.01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons i.e. Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. He then submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has exceeded its jurisdi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.8 of the complaint case and submitted that it is alleged that on the basis of information shared under Section 66 (2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Head Quarter on 03.03.2023 an FIR No.22/2023 was registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Mukesh Mittal and unknown others and the said FIR No.22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. He submitted that the co-accused, namely, Harish Yadav has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3616 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6174 of 2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024. He further submitted that Rajkumari and Genda Ram have been provided relief by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61. He submitted that interim relief of no arrest has been granted in favour of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Mittal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of Tara Chand was also recorded later under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein he stated that he used to collect cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia, to whom Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram, on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal and the total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores that have been transferred to the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and these are only fake business entries given in lieu of commission. He further submitted that four bank accounts of Tara Chand were operated by Harish Yadav on the instruction of Neeraj Mittal, who is the petitioner. By way of referring para 5.4.2 (x) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that the petitioner has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that in the year 2022, Ram Prakash Bhatia gave him bank accounts and asked him to provide entries therein against the cash provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia. He further stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship and one individual, accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dra Kumar Ram has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and the bail application of Tara Chand has been rejected in B.A. No.11095 of 2023. On these grounds, he submitted that the regular bail application, so far as the petitioner is concerned, may kindly be rejected. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the allegation made against the petitioner and finds that so far as Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal is concerned, he was the main person who was managing all the things and how money transactions were made that have been disclosed in paras 5.4.2(ix), 5.4.2(x) and 5.4.2(xi) of complaint (supra). Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram on the instruction of this petitioner and total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores have been transferred in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and operated by Harish Yadav on instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and that has come in the complaint case. The petitioner has stated in his statement that for entries purpose, he asked Tara Chand to provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority. Hence, the need to be extra conscious." 8. In paragraph no.284 of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e role of Harish Yadav is not direct and in view of that, he has been granted bail. 13. So far as Raj Kumari and Genda Ram are concerned, they have been given benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office (supra). Thus, those orders are on different footing. 14. So far as Prem Prakash is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it does not prima facie indicate any role of Prem Pakash and considering that aspect Prem Pakash has been granted bail. In view of above facts, the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable with the case of Prem Prakash, as such, the case of Prem Prakash is further not helping the petitioner. 15. So far as the case of Manish Sisodia is concerned, this Court finds that in the case of Manish Sidsodia in the earlier the Directorate of Enforcement had informed the Hon'ble Supreme Court that within the stipulated period the trial will be concluded however the trial was not concluded and Sidsodia was behind bar since 17 months and on these grounds Manish Sisodia was granted bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court. The fact in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent claimed parity with twenty-eight (28) other accused persons in the same case who have already been granted bail. We find that though some of the accused are released on bail most of them are teachers who performed the invigilation duty and members of the Managing Committee against whom the charges are not so serious. It is not appropriate to compare the case of the respondent-accused, with those who were on bail, as the respondent is alleged to be the kingpin of the entire crime. 11. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal propositions canvassed by the learned counsel, it should be noted that there is no straitjacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal....