TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, NACIL, Air India and unknown private persons vide FIR No.RC-DAI-2017-A-0022 dated 29.05.2017 under Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the offences were scheduled offences under PMLA and involved generation of proceeds of crime, ECIR/HQ/13/2017 was recorded on 17.08.2017 and the investigations were initiated by the Petitioner. 3. It was alleged that the officials of Ministry of Civil Aviation, NACIL, Air India abused their official positions and received illegal gratification, in conspiracy with other public servants, private, domestic and foreign airlines to make the national carrier give up profit making routes and profit-making timings of Air India in favour of other National and International, domestic and foreign private airlines. This resulted in a huge loss to the National Carrier and also resulted in pecuniary benefits to other private domestic and foreign airlines. 4. It was further alleged that the main Accused, Deepak Talwar took undue advantage of his proximity with various Government officials and public servants....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, PMLA, on which the process was issued to the Respondent and others. The role of the Respondent in the commission of the offence of money laundering was highlighted. Clinching evidence had come on record to show her complicity. 11. The role of the Respondent, as highlighted in the Prosecution Complaint, was that she is an active aide of Deepak Talwar and a participant in the commission of the offence, involving proceeds of crime to the tune of INR 272 Crores. She is a Director/Shareholder/Trustee in many of the Companies/entities/trusts created by Deepak Talwar in India and abroad. 12. The proceeds of crime have been used for acquisition of the property where the Respondent resides and she is the beneficial owner of the same. She is the trustee and beneficiary of the Sunrise Trust. The rent paid to Gulshan Promoters (beneficiary being the Respondent and her daughters) for the said property is a face and she is utilizing the property and the payments were of personal benefits. She is a Director in M/s Garbil Trading Ltd. and Proceeds of crime to the tune of INR 89.62 Crores approximately have been transferred from Bank of Singapore Account No. 402373 of M/s Gilt Asset Manage....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The material on record has been ignored. The investigations are at a very crucial stage as the investigations are still ongoing. The witnesses, who have been identified both in India and abroad, are in the process of being examined. If the Respondent is enlarged on Bail, she would most definitely, whether directly or indirectly, ensure that the persons who were in the know of things, including banks, financial institutions and others with whom the investigation was being followed-up, do not disclose the true state of affairs to the Investigating Agency. 18. Further reliance has been placed on Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Admn.), [(1978) 1 SCC 118]; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280; State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi, [(2005) 8 SCC 21]; State of Maharashtra vs. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561; Raju Premji vs. Customs NER Shillong Unit and Arun vs. D. Pakyntein, (2009) 16 SCC 496; Rohit Tandon vs. Enforcement Directorate, (2018), 11 SCC 46 and Union of India vs. Hassan Ali Khan and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 23. 19. It is, therefore, submitted that the Order dated 13.12.2019 vide whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dge, PMLA. There are no further allegations qua the Respondent post the grant of Regular Bail nor has she made any attempt to either tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses. 25. The allegations which led to the cancellation of the Anticipatory Bail, pertained to securing favours for co-accused while he was in judicial custody, but that does not come within the realm of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses. These aspects have been duly considered by the learned Special Judge while granting Bail. 26. Furthermore, the allegations made by the Petitioner is that during the investigations of the Case, the Respondent tried to influence Ms. Neeru Dua by directing her to destroy the relevant e-mails. However, the statement of Ms. Neeru Dua under Section 50 of PMLA, had been recorded on 14.08.2019, to which no reference has been made. The perusal of the aforesaid Statement does not indicate any kind of influencing her by the Respondent and no such influence brought out from her Statement. 27. The Petitioner has claimed that the investigations in the instant case, is still ongoing. However, the Supplementary Charge-Sheet has already been filed against the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere were no supervening circumstances of misconduct or attempt on the part of the Accused, to thwart the process of justice. 33. It is, therefore, submitted that the present Application is without merit and be dismissed. 34. Rejoinder Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner wherein essentially, the same facts have been reiterated. 35. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions heard and the record perused. 36. The Petitioner had registered a Complaint No. RC-DAI-2017-A-0022 dated 29.05.2017, in which the main Accused was Deepak Talwar, against whom the Complaint already stands filed in March, 2019. Here is a case that the Respondent was granted Anticipatory Bail after considering all the circumstances including the gravity of offence on 22.03.2019, which Order never got challenged by the Petitioner. It was a detailed Order wherein all the relevant factors including the triple test, was considered. 37. Thereafter, the Anticipatory Bail was cancelled vide Order dated 23.09.2019 on two grounds - (i) She tried to influence the witnesses and (ii) she tried to influence the authorities against the main A....