TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ern Coalfield Limited ('ECL') at Railway Siding No.1 located at Pandaveswar, wherein 9.50 Metric Tonnes of coal was recovered and seized. On 05.11.2020, search and seizure operation(s) were carried out by the Income Tax Department at the Applicants' business premises under Section 132 (4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'). 4. The CBI, Kolkata, registered an FIR being RC No. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020 ('FIR') against the Applicant and other identified public and private person(s) under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') read with Section 13 (2) and Section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act'). 5. On 28.11.2020, the Respondent Agency proceeded to register an Enforcement Case Information Report being ECIR No. ECIR/HIU/17/2020 ('ECIR') against the Applicant and other accused person(s) under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. 6. The Applicant challenged the FIR before the High Court of Calcutta by Writ Petition No. 10457/2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2021. An Appeal before Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta by way of MAT No. 167 of 2021 vide order dated 12.02.2021 was also dismissed rejecting the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Patiala House Court took cognizance of offence under Section 174 of the IPC against the Applicant. 14. Vide order dated 14.05.2024, the learned Special Judge enlarged the Applicant on interim regular bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR. 15. On 01.07.2024, the Predicate Agency / CBI furnished a 2nd Supplementary Chargesheet in the proceedings emanating from the Subject FIR before the learned Special Judge, CBI against 7 additional accused persons. 16. Vide order dated 03.07.2024 in Special CBI Case No. 1/2022, the learned Special Judge, CBI recalled proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC against the Applicant. 17. Vide order dated 10.12.2024, in Special CBI Case No. 1/2022, charges came to be framed under Sections 379, 411, 414, 420 & 471 of the IPC; Section 8 of the PC Act; under Section 120B read with Sections 379, 409, 420, 471, 411, 414 of the IPC; under Section 120B read with Sections 7, 8, 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (a) of PC Act. Vide order dated 16.01.2025, the learned Special Judge, CBI confirmed the regular bail granted to the Applicant. 18. Vide order dated 25.04.2024, the Applicant was granted interim protection from arrest i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Anticipatory Bail before the learned Special Court by way of a Bail Matter No. 68/2025. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.05.2025 and consequently, the interim protection granted to the Applicant was vacated without appreciating the true facts and legal landscape relating to the Applicant's anticipatory bail. 28. It is submitted that there has been a considerable delay in the investigation as the same has been pending for about 5 years since the registration of the ECIR. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that there is no material based on which the Respondent Agency can form an opinion about the reason to believe that the Applicant has been guilty of an offence punishable under PMLA. 29. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the Respondent Agency has relied upon loose sheets of documents recovered from the possession of the chartered accountant, who is yet to be examined by the Respondent Agency. In view of the same, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant was involved in any money laundering activity. 30. It is submitted that the statement of one Mr. Niraj Singh, which was rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecording reasons in writing that the arrestee is guilty." 33. In view of the above, it is submitted that the guilt of the Applicant can only be established on admissible evidence and cannot be based on inadmissible evidence. It was submitted that the power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of the PMLA can be exercised only when material is available to form an opinion by recording reasons in writing that the Applicant is guilty. In the instant case, there is no material available with the Respondent Agency, which can result in the forming of an opinion that can be recorded in writing that the Applicant is guilty of an offence under PMLA. 34. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ors.: (2024) 7 SCC 576 which holds that: "33. We may also note that the failure of the appellants to respond to the questions put to them by ED would not be sufficient in itself for the investigating officer to opine that they were liable to be arrested under Section 19, as that provision specifically requires him to find reason to believe that they were guilty of an offence under the 2002 Act. Mere non-coo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicant. Hence, the instant anticipatory bail may be granted as the Applicant never misused any liberty granted to him either in the Predicate Agency or in the present proceedings under PMLA. There is no necessity to arrest the Applicant as the Applicant has already recorded his statement before the agency on 13 occasions and has already offered to join investigation vide letter dated 06.05.2025. 37. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that Applicant has extended his full and complete cooperation with the Respondent Agency as well as the Predicate Agency and is willing to further cooperate and provide full information to the Respondent Agency, as and when required. 38. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant has submitted that the 'twin conditions' under Section 45 is satisfied as there is reasonable ground to believe that the Applicant is not guilty of the offence under PMLA and that the Applicant is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 39. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed by the Applicant that the Applicant be granted Anticipatory Bail on conditions that may be found appropriate by this Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the period 01.07.2018 to 31.03.2020. He also stated that the details after 01.04.2020 had not been entered in tally and these were the entries for the cash collected. 44. The Status Report also provides the details of the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA of the Directors of M/s Brightstar Tie-Up Private Limited; M/s Sungold Vincom Private Limited; M/s Knockout Sales Private Limited; M/s Starlight Devcon Private Limited; M/s Starrose Marketing Private Limited; M/s Bhanupriya Projects Consultants Private Limited; M/s Prabhat Nursery Private Limited. During the investigation, it was found that these companies were shell companies and the Applicant had appointed the Directors whose statements have been recorded by the Respondent Agency and it was admitted in those statements that the Applicant used to send Mr. Niraj Singh for signing documents of these companies and none of them had attended any board meeting of these companies and that they were dummy Directors and had no idea about working, banking transaction and nature of these companies. 45. It is further submitted by the learned SPP that during the course of investigation, total 11 summons were issued by the Res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of the PMLA under Section 22(1) of PMLA, which provides as under: "22. Presumption as to records or property in certain cases.- (1) Where any records or property are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a survey or a search, [or where any record or property is produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from the custody or control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force,] it shall be presumed that- (i) such records or property belong or belongs to such person; (ii) the contents of such records are true; and (iii) the signature and every other part of such records which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a record, stamped, executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so stamped, executed or attested " 50. In view of the above, it is submitted that there is a presumption that the record recovered in the possession or co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the Respondent Agency, it cannot be held that the Applicant is not guilty of alleged offences or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as required under Section 45 (1) of PMLA. 55. The learned SPP has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 to submit that the grant of anticipatory bail at the investigation may frustrate the Investigating Agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the material which might have been concealed. It was further held by the Supreme Court that success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the Court. It was held that grant of Anticipatory Bail, particularly, in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. 56. The learned SPP has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Anil Sharma: (1997) 7 SCC 187 which holds that: "6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented that questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection from arrest in relation to the proceedings instituted by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Asansol, under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC, which is not misused by the Applicant. v. Vide order dated 14.05.2024, the learned Special Judge, CBI, Asansol, enlarged the Applicant on interim regular bail in relation to proceedings emanating from the FIR, which has been extended from time to time and confirmed vide order dated 16.01.2025. vi. The Applicant has not misused any liberty granted to him in the Predicate Offence in the present proceedings under PMLA. vii. The 'twin conditions' under Section 45 of PMLA has been satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case as the learned SPP was given an opportunity to oppose this Application and this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence under PMLA as the investigation has taken considerable time and the Respondent Agency has already filed a Chargesheet and a Supplementary Chargesheet without taking any steps to arrest the Applicant for custodial investigation. viii. The Applicant is not likely to commit an offence while on bail as the Status Re....