TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1602
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under: 3. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. 4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Misc. Cri. Application No. 2409 of 2024 before the Special Judge for grant of his bail which was dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned AJC-I-Cum Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi. 12. Hence the present application has been preferred for the grant of bail. Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 13. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued inter alia on the following grounds: (i) If the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, there is no reason to believe which is the primary requirement for making arrest of a person said to be involved in commission of offence under the Act, 2002 as per the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002. (ii) Further, at the time of arrest the condition stipulated under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has not been followed and the ground of arrest has not been provided, in writing, as required to be provided under the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 coupled with the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 : (2024) 7 SCC 576]; V. Senthil Balaj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....state Pvt. Ltd. except long friendship of about 30 years with Mr. Dilip Ghosh who is a director of M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. (viii) Since, the accused petitioner has no connection whatsoever with the said Property and does not have any stake in M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., no presumption can be drawn for acquisition of the said Property by the accused petitioner in the name of M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. being beneficial owner of the said company. (ix) There is no document/material available on record to implicate the petitioner for forging and manipulating the title deeds being Deed of Sale No. 4369 dated 11.10.1932 of the property in question in the office of Registrar of Assurances at Kolkata. (x) There is nothing on record to suggest, even remotely, that any conversation and/or communication and/or correspondence was ever exchanged between the petitioner on the one hand and accused Pradeep Bagchi and other accused persons on the other hand, who were involved in forging the title deeds of the said Property to project title of the said Property as that of accused Pradeep Bagchi. Nor is there any allegation and/or material on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....understand' 'I have read my ground of arrest completely and also communicated to Mr. Dilip Ghosh." and below therein has put his signature with date i.e., 07.06.2023. In view thereof, submission has been made that the petitioner has been communicated with the reason of arrest, the day when he was taken into custody i.e., on 07.06.2023. Hence, the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 has fully been complied with. Further, when the petitioner was produced before the Special Judge, PMLA on 08.06.2023, he did not complain regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest or about any ill-treatment against the arrest. (iii) The learned Special Judge has specifically recorded in order dated 08.06.2023 that the information of arrest has been given to their family members and at the time of passing of order learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Bidhyut Chourasia and Abhishek Agarwal were also present. (iv) The arrest of the petitioner, therefore, is in consonance with the interpretation made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra); Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra); V. Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (viii) The holding number was issued to show that the possession of the said land is in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and based upon which, title of the said land was cleared with the connivance of then DC Mr. Chhavi Ranjan(co-accused) by relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in Registrar of Assurance Office, Kolkata and the same was done under the instruction of the Petitioner. Petitioner acquired the property in the name of one of the companies i.e. M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and acquired the land being aware about the conspiracy to acquire the property by making fake deed no. 4369/1932 and obtaining a preconceived report to verify the forged sale deed planted in the records of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. (ix) Further, the proceeds of crime are generated wherein a forged deed is relied upon and the transaction was entered into a minuscule rate wherein no actual payment of amount was done. The said act of the petitioner makes his intention and knowledge evidently clear as the Petitioner made the company a front to acquire the said property and evidence shows that the Petitioner and Dilip Ghosh have close associations.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l aspects of the instant case. 19. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against Pradeep Bagchi for submission of forged papers in order to obtain holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Further, Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. 20. Investigation further revealed that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques. 21. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer Bargain, Ranchi along with the office ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, the petitioner moved against the order dated 01.03.2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Cr.) No. 6584 of 2024, which was also dismissed as withdrawn. 28. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that the learned counsel for the respondent ED has contended that since the prayer for bail has already been adjudicated by this Court and all the issues which have been raised herein by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has already been considered by this court while dismissing the said bail application, further no new ground is available herein, therefore it is not required to consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner a fresh. The learned counsel for the respondent ED has further contended that SLP being SLP (Cr.) No. 6584 of 2024, which has preferred against the said order has also been dismissed as withdrawn. 29. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for proper appreciation of the present application it would be better to refer relevant paragraphs of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed in B.A. No. 7343 of 2023 by which the bail of the present petitioner had been rejected. The relevant paragraph of aforesaid order is being quoted as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, 2002. 40. This Court is making reference of these judgments even though the petitioner has not argued and that is not the case of the petitioner, i.e., there is no communication of communicating the reason of arrest. It is corroborative from the fact that the petitioner, after arrest under Section 19 (1) has been remanded but the said order of remanded has not been assailed before any forum which suggest that the petitioner is having no grievance so far as the alleged non-compliance of the provision of Section 19 (1) of the Act, 2002 is concerned" 30. It is thus evident from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs that this Court while referring the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) and Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors has observed that even though the petitioner has not argued and that is not the case of the petitioner, i.e., there is no communication of communicating the reason of arrest. It is corroborative from the fact that the petitioner, after arrest under Section 19 (1) has been remanded but the said order of remand has not been assailed befo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equired to rehear the issue of legality of arrest dated 07.06.2023 due to the reason that the prayer with respect to the issue of arrest has consciously been not agitated by confining the prayer made in the said petition restricting the petition only to the issue of legality and propriety of remand. However, since it is a case for consideration of issue of bail wherein this point has again been agitated, hence, in the ends of justice, the same is being considered herein. 35. Before adverting into the merit of the case this Court thinks fit to discuss the provision of law particularly Section 19 as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments. 36. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....try but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 42. The "property" has been defined under Section 2 (1) (v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located. 43. The schedule has been defined under Section 2 (1) (x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2 (1) (y) which reads as under: "2(y) "scheduled offence" means- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule." 44. It is evident that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever. 48. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 49. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. 50. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002. The definition of "proceeds of crime" as under paragraph-251. 51. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph-265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs are being referred as under: "265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime. 53. So far as the purport of Section 45 (1) (i) (ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 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 Sub-section (2) thereof....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering. 412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering." 55. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a standalone process. 59. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. 60. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....categorised and guidelines are sought to be laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the statutory provisions. 3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below. The guidelines are as under: 'Categories/Types of Offences (A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B & D. (B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years. (C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section 212(6)], etc. (D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts. REQUISITE CONDITIONS (1) Not arrested during investigation. (2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before investigating officer whenever called. (No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet (Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)-'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437 (1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule." 63. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr (supra)'s judgment, the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which also includes money laundering offences wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the rule and bail is the exception. 64. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this court is now adverting to merit of the case. Issue of legality of Arrest 65. Now coming to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the 79[special court or] magistrate's court. 68. It is evident from perusal of the Section 19 of PMLA which gives the power to arrest if the officer concerned has "reason to believe" on the basis of material in his possession, that the person is guilty. As per Section 19 the arrest has to be on the basis of material in possession with the ED, there is reason to believe that the accused is guilty of the offence, with the reason recorded in writing and the grounds for arrest should be communicated with the accused. 69. As discussed herein above the entire PML Act, 2002 fell for consideration before the three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) wherein the provision of Section 19 (1) has also been taken into consideration, which would be evident from paragraphs, which reads as under: 371. The next issue is : Whether it is necessary to furnish copy of ECIR to the person concerned apprehending arrest or at least after his arrest? Section 19 (1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002 Act, is contemporaneously made aware about the grounds of his arrest. This is compliant with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution. 70. It is evident from the aforesaid consideration as referred in the aforesaid judgment that once the person is informed of the grounds of arrest, that would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and it is not necessary that a copy of the ECIR be supplied in every case to the person concerned, as such, a condition is not mandatory and it is enough if ED discloses the grounds of arrest to the person concerned at the time of arrest. 71. It needs to refer herein the judgment which has come in the case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State Represented by Deputy Director & Ors. (supra) which was passed on 07.08.2023 wherein consideration has been given with respect to the issue of Section 19 (1) holding therein that that after forming a reason to believe that the person has been guilty of an offence punis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reased from 13 to 30, as per this complaint. This case was numbered as COMA/01/2022, titled "Enforcement Directorate v. Lalit Goyal and others", and was pending in the Court of Sudhir Parmar, Special Judge. At that stage, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, received information that Sudhir Parmar was showing favouritism to Lalit Goyal, the owner of IREO Group, and also to Roop Bansal and his brother, Basant Bansal, the owners of M3M Group. This led to the registration of FIR No. 0006 dated 17-4-2023. On 12-5-2023, ED issued summons to M3M India Pvt. Ltd., calling upon it to provide information and documents pertaining to transactions with certain companies. Thereafter, on 1-6-2023, ED raided the properties of M3M Group and effected seizures of assets and bank accounts. Roop Bansal was arrested by ED on 8-6-2023 apropos the first ECIR. 4. Apprehending that action would be taken against them also in the context of the first ECIR, Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal secured [Basant Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 2 HCC (Del) 700], [Pankaj Bansal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3590] interim protection from the Delhi High Court in Bail Applications Nos. 2030....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt at ED's office at Rajokri, New Delhi, on 14-6-2023 at 11.00 a.m. It is also not in dispute that, while he was there, Basant Bansal was arrested at 6.00 p.m. on 14-6-2023 and Pankaj Bansal was arrested at 10.30 p.m. on the same day. These arrests, made in connection with the second ECIR, were in exercise of power under Section 19 (1) PMLA. The arrested persons were then taken to Panchkula, Haryana, and produced before the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. There, they were served with the remand application filed by ED. 10. It was the specific case of the father and son in their writ petitions before the High Court that their arrest under the provisions of PMLA was a wanton abuse of power/authority and an abuse of process by ED, apart from being blatantly illegal and unconstitutional. They also asserted that ED acted in violation of the safeguards provided in Section 19 PMLA. In this milieu, they made the following prayers: "In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) and/or direction(s) to: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the arrested person to be supplied with all the material that is forwarded to the adjudicating authority under Section 19 (2), he/she has a constitutional and statutory right to be "informed" of the grounds of arrest, which are compulsorily recorded in writing by the authorised officer in keeping with the mandate of Section 19 (1) PMLA. As already noted hereinbefore, it seems that the mode of informing this to the persons arrested is left to the option of ED's authorised officers in different parts of the country i.e. to either furnish such grounds of arrest in writing or to allow such grounds to be read by the arrested person or be read over and explained to such person. 45. On the above analysis, to give true meaning and purpose to the constitutional and the statutory mandate of Section 19 (1) PMLA of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest, we hold that it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. The decisions of the Delhi High Court in Moin Akhtar Qureshi [Moin Akhtar Qureshi v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12108] and the Bomba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under : 16. In view of the aforestated proposition of law propounded by the Constitution Benches, there remains no shadow of doubt that the law laid down by the three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] that Section 19 (1) PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PML Act and that the said provision is also compliant with the mandate of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India, any observation made or any finding recorded by the Division Bench of lesser number of Judges contrary to the said ratio laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929] would be not in consonance with the jurisprudential wisdom expounded by the Constitution Benches in cases referred above. The three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, in our opinion the person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e. as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only Section 19 PMLA but also of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. 23. As discernible from the judgment in Pankaj Bansal case [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] also noticing the inconsistent practice being followed by the officers arresting the persons under Section 19 PMLA, directed to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing as a matter of course, "henceforth", meaning thereby from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The very use of the word "henceforth" implied that the said requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel Mr Singhvi for the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iting to the appellant-accused is noted to be rejected. 79. Again, in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) the view has been taken for communication of reason of arrest and it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the written "grounds of arrest", though a must, does not in itself satisfy the compliance requirement. The authorized officer's genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the "reasons to believe" are accorded by the authorised officer, the onus to establish satisfaction of the said condition will be on the DoE and not on the arrestee. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) is a decision rendered by a three Judge Bench, hence after formulating the questions of law has referred the matter for consideration by a larger Bench. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: 11. Arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act may occur prior to the filing of the prosecution complaint and before the Special Judge takes cogni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the "reasons to believe" are accorded by the authorised officer, the onus to establish satisfaction of the said condition will be on the DoE and not on the arrestee. 80. It is, thus, evident from the cumulative consideration of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, that the law under statutory provision as contained under Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 is that the reason is to be communicated to the person concerned then only the arrest would be said to be valid. 81. We are conscious that in any nature of arrest the mandatory requirement is to be fulfilled. Herein, the mandatory requirement as per Article 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 coupled with the judgment as referred hereinabove by laying down the ratio to communicate the reason for arrest in writing and as such we have to consider as to whether the said statutory command in the facts and circumstances of the present case has been followed or not, if yes, then the arrest cannot be held to be invalid and if no, then certainly the arrest would be held to be invalid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such, there is nothing to suggest that the arrest of the accused person was affected in violation of the of provision of Section 19 of the PMLA or that the same was otherwise illegal as the I.O. had not only recorded the reasons of his belief before the arrest but the said grounds were also informed to the Accused/Petitioner. 87. On the basis of discussion made herein above it is evident from the record that the Petitioner was informed about the ground of arrest immediately by the Enforcement Directorate with his acknowledgement. Further, it is also an admitted position that within 24 hours of the arrest, the arrestee was supplied with the remand application which virtually contains all the grounds of arrest and therefore the legal requirement of informing the grounds of arrested "as soon as may be" also stood fulfilled both as per the statutory requirement under S. 19 (1) of the PMLA as well as the constitutional mandate under Article 22 (1) of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal (supra) had made the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing, only prospective, by using the word "henceforth". The same has also been clari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious paragraph of the prosecution complaint particularly paragraph 8.9, and supplementary affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit which have been appended with the present petition. 94. It is evident that the statement of Dilip Kumar Ghosh (co-accused) which was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA Act is mentioned at paragraph-8.9 of the complaint submitted by the Enforcement Directorate. For ready reference, the same is being reproduced as under: 8.9 Dilip Kumar Ghosh (Accused no. 2-Director of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.) * In his statement dated 27.02.2023 (RUD No. 77) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, the accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh stated that Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. is his company and Amit Kumar Agarwal. He stated that tea leaves are plucked from the tea plants of the company which is spread over 120 acres. He further stated that the tea estate has nearly 155 labours to whom the wages are paid in cash. On being asked the reasons of frequent huge cash deposit in the account of IDFC First Bank of the company Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., he stated that the same are the sale proceeds of the raw tea leaves sold by the company a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted with the production and sale of tea leaves as per the stock register maintained at the tea garden of Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. which was obtained during survey under section 16 of PMLA on 15.05.2023 and corresponding transactions appearing in bank accounts and balance sheet of the company. He gave unsatisfactory and misleading answers. 95. It is evident from the preceding paragraph that in his statement dated 27.02.2023 (RUD No. 77) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, the accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh stated that Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. is his company and Amit Kumar Agarwal. He had further stated that the cash was deposited in cash through Bikash Jana and Deepak Sah who are the employees of Amit Kumar Agarwal. 96. But the aforesaid fact has been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that Dilip Kumar Ghosh has never stated the fact that Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. is his company and Amit Kumar Agarwal. The learned counsel further contended that M/s. Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Private Limited was incorporated on 10.05.1994 with the Registrar of Companies, Kolkata (West Bengal). Accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh and his wife, Mrs. Sutapa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gives their salaries? Ans. 14: These two people are workers of the company of Amit Kumar Agarwal Group and they get their salaries from there. Ques.15: From which office the official work of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate is done? Ans. 15. Without paying any rent I use the office of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate at the 7/7 office space of the Amit Kumar Agarwal Group. Ans.17: How many directors of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate are there and what are their salaries? Ans. 17: There are 2 directors of the Jagatbandhu Tea Estate: Dilip Kumar Ghosh - salary 50,000-1,00,000 monthly Sutapa Ghosh - salary 50,000 monthly. Ques.18: The office of your Jagatbandhu Tea Estate is your own or on rent? Ans. 18: Without paying any rent I use a 7/7 office space of the Amit Kumar Agarwal Group Ques. 19: Who fills up the cash deposit form to deposit the cash of the Jagatbandhu Tea Estate? Ans. 19: I used to give the money to Bikash Jana and Deepak Sau and then they used to fill up the deposit form at the office. Who used to fill up the form at the office I cannot tell that. Ques. 20: How much money is deposited for I.T.R of Jagatbandh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate that in the place of registered email id [email protected] is registered, in the place of signatory 2 Sutapa Ghosh is written and with director mobile number 9433004062 and email id [email protected] is written. Please tell who the owner of this mobile number is and why the email id of Rajesh Auto Merchandise is registered ? Answer: The owner of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. is Amit Agarwal and Prasenjit Pal Choudhary is his employee, who works in the Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.. The mobile number 9433004062, registered in the account opening form is of Prasenjit Pal Choudhary and the email id [email protected] is in the name of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.. As most of the time I stay outside Kolkata, the official work is look after by the employees of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd.. So, there email id and mobile number are provided. Ques.30: From the above question-answer it is understood that the owner of Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Amit Agarwal can see and control the accounts of the IDFC bank account of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate through the mobile number and the email id. Please tell its reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in bank account of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd, Rs 4.13 crores was immediately transferred into the bank account of M/s Rajesh Aute Merchandise Fvt. Ltd. The directors of this company are Rajesh Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, brothers of Amit Kumar Agarwal (RUD Nc. 76). The accused person Amit Kumar Agarwal held the directorship of this company for the period 21.03.2005 to 07.07.2022 The other accused and Director of Mi's Jagatbandhu Tea Estates namely Dilip Kumar Ghosh was also the director of Rajesh Autc Merchandise Pvt. Ltd during the period 26.03.2019 to 08.09.2021. Some of the cash deposited into account of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates was also transferred to one company Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd whose present directors are Amit Kumar Agarwal and Abanti Agarwal. The accused and the director of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates, Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been director of the following companies of Agarwal group.------ 9.5.2 The accused Dilip Kumar Gnosh ceased as the director of the above Companies of Agarwal group during the period 02.09.2021 to 14.09.2021. Immediately after his cessation, i.e., on 01.10.2021, the defence property got registered in the name of Jag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, it is manifestly apparent from the aforesaid fact that present petitioner has close linkup with the said company i.e. M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. However, the present petitioner is the director of the said company or not, is the matter of trial wherein both the parties are free to lead evidence in this regard. 104. This Court is conscious with the fact that while granting or refusing bail the Court has to see only the prima-facie case and there is no need to go deep in appreciation of the evidence. It needs to refer herein that in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 24 of the PMLA provide that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner. Similarly, in the case of Union of India v. Hassan Ali Khan (2011) 10 SCC 235, it was held that allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the money was not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erchandise Pvt. Ltd. (a company which is owned by Rajesh Kumar Agarwal and Amar Kumar Agarwal, (brothers of Amit Kumar Agarwal) and Sanayukt Vanijya Pvt. Ltd has been used in the KYC of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. which leads to the conclusion that M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Itd. is a company which is linked to Amit Kumar Agarwal. 110. Further, after going through the various paragraphs of prosecution complaint as well as statement of Dilip Kumar Ghosh which have been referred hereinabove various questions were made to Dilip Kumar Ghosh pertaining to the working of Jagthbandhu Tea Estate, details of directors in the company and the financial relationship between the companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal. Further, during the statement the following points emerged which are as follows- (i) In respect of the cash deposits made by two persons i.e. Bikash Jana and Deepak Saw in the accounts of the accused company Jagthbandhu Tea Estate (in whose name the property was acquired), as well as about one Amit Singhania, who looks after the accounts of Jagthbandhu Tea Estate, it was stated by Dilip Ghosh that Bikash Jana, Deepak Saw as well as Amit Singhania are employees o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng fulfilled so as to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. 112. It needs to refer herein that prayer for bail of other co-accused persons namely, Faiyaz Khan, Tahla Khan and Chhavi Ranjan who were also involved in alleged offence, has been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 11.04.2025,12.04.2024 and 22.03.2024 passed in B.A. No. 3421 of 2024, B.A. No. 10296 of 2023 and B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 respectively. 113. Further the co-accused person, namely, Tahla Khan and Chhavi Ranjan had preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7674 of 2024 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 38676/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but vide orders dated 25.06.2024 and 27.09.2024 respectively the said SLPs have also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 114. The ground of custody of 22 months of the petitioner has been taken. There is no dispute that the question of personal liberty is to be taken care of in order to follow the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India but equally it is not in dispute that in a case of like nature, in which the petitioner has been involved, as per the allegation, balance is to be maintained in order to h....