TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 156
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r bail of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted as hereunder:- 3) The petitioner is in custody for about twenty-two months upon being implicated on the basis of the statement of co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal. Six complaints were filed by the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as the E.D.) in this case and the petitioner was named for the first time in the third complaint. Further investigation is still in progress and there is no chance of disposal of the case in near future. There are three hundred witnesses who need to be examined to prove the case and thousands of pages of documents to be proved. The petitioner was lastly interrogated in judicial custody before one year and eight months and not any further till date. 4) Tapas Kumar Mondal who is the principal accused of the case and claimed to have collected more than a few hundred crores of rupees by duping several persons was granted bail by learned Trial Court on 27th March, 2024. He has also been granted bail in the predicate offence on 8th October, 2024. Statement of Tapas Kumar Mondal was recorded under section 50 of the Act of 2002 in collusion with the respondent to implicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3655 of 2024. 8. Prem Prakash vs. Union of India reported in SLP (Crl) No. 5416 of 2024. 9. Manik Bhattacharya vs. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II reported in C.R.M (SB) No. 72 of 2024. 10. Kaustav Roy vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in C.R.M (DB) No. 2929 of 2024. 7) In opposing the prayer for bail, learned counsel for the E.D. has canvassed the following argument. At the outset, learned counsel has referred to a letter issued by the E.D. which says that the bail order dated 12th September, 2024 in the case of Manik Bhattacharyya v/s. Directorate of Enforcement in C.R.M. (SB) 72 of 2024 granted by this Court has been accepted by the competent authority. 8) The petitioner is not at par with Manik Bhattacharyya insofar as his period of detention is concerned since he was arrested on 21st January, 2023 and is in custody for twenty months whereas Manik Bhattacharyya was arrested on 10th October, 2022 and was in custody for 23.4 months before being enlarged on bail. On merits, learned counsel has submitted that investigation qua the petitioner is complete. The bail prayer of the petitioner in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar Jain vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317. 4. Partha Chatterjee vs. Enforcement Directorate [CRM (SB) 180 of 2023]. 5. Kuntal Ghosh vs. C.B.I. [C.R.M (DB) 681 of 2024]. 6. Manish Sisodia vs. C.B.I reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393. 7. Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486. 8. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union Of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. 9. State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364. 10. Y.S Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. C.B.I reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. 11. Nimmagadda Prasad vs. C.B.I reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466. 12. Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act) reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1. 13. State of Bihar vs. Amit Kumar reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. 14. Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129. 15. Tofan Singh vs. State of T.N. reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1. 16. Subires Bhattacharyya vs. C.B.I. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4307. 17. Anubrata Mondal vs. C.B.I, reported in 2023....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d May, 2024 in C.R.M. (DB) 681 of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has turned down the bail prayer of the petitioner with certain observation (in connection with the predicate offence). It shall be useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the order. "Allegations in the charge sheet disclose deep and pervasive corruption prevailing in the recruitment process of teachers in primary schools for the year 2016. Office bearers of the Board had entered into a conspiracy and devised an ingenious stratagem to ensure appointment of favoured candidates who were ready and willing to shell out illegal gratification. Deserving candidates were ignored. Petitioner played a vital role to set up a web of agents and sub agents who approached these undeserving candidates and procured illegal gratification. To enable this criminal enterprise he floated a fake website of West Bengal Board of Primary Education titled www. Wbtetresults.com. Therefore, petitioner and his agents and sub agents induced candidates to pay them illegal gratification for wrongful appointments. Gravity of the offence and prima facie involvement of the petitioner therein do not required further emphasis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 7 SCC 466, Gautam Kundu, v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai (2017) 13 SCC 751. This Court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364, as under:- The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be committed in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713 and Satender Kumar Antil v/s. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another reported in (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 51 and observed as follows:- "If the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime." The Hon'ble Court has also observed that the principle bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach and it is high time that the trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that bail is rule and jail is exception. 22) Learned counsel for the E.D. has pointed out that section 479(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita envisages that where the investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. But this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 21 of the Constitution has been infringed. Even in the case of interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever stringent it may be, a constitutional Court has to lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part. 25) This Court is not oblivious of the fact that the aspect of continued detention of the petitioner was considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in C.R.M. (DB) 681 of 2024. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that further detention of the petitioner was necessary to insulate the process of further investigation with regard to the nexus of the petitioner with the office bearers of the Board and to trace out the proceeds of crime which were rooted through the petitioner to other influential persons. Complaint of the present case was also taken note of by the Hon'ble Division Bench. 26) The said order was passed before about six months and in the meantime investigation has concluded. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner faced custodial interrogation lastly before one year and eight months and not thereafter. 27) In view of the circumstances as stated hereinabove and the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court with reg....