TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fully arrested in this case on 21.03.2025 in the aforesaid ECIR and has been incarcerated in jail since then. 3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Application, are that pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6572/2004 in the matter of M/s PGF Limited vs. Union of India & Others, CBI, BSFC registered an FIR bearing No. RCBIDI/2014/E/0004 dated 19.02.2014 under Section 120B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") against M/s PGF Limited, Shri Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, Shri Harchand Singh, Shri Chandar Bhushan Dhillon, Shri Prem Seth, all Directors of M/s PGF Limited; M/s PACL India Limited, Shri Sukhev Singh, Shri Gurmeet Singh, Shri Subrata Bhatthacharya, Shri Gurjant Singh Gill, all Directors of M/s PACL and unknown others, on the allegation that the promoters/Directors of M/s PGF Limited and M/s PACL Limited in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy among themselves, operated various investment schemes to induce the investors to part with their funds with an intention to cheat them. 4. It is the case of the CBI that M/s Pearls Golden Forest Limited and M/s PACL Limited through its illegal and fraudulent activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermission to travel abroad in 2024, once his wife would come back from travelling abroad, vide Order dated 15.07.2024. 10. The Applicant states that he has been implicated in the ECIR case, on the basis of familial association with Late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo, being his son-in-law. It was alleged that the Applicant was a Director in two Australian Companies, namely, M/s Pearls Australasia Pty Ltd. and M/s Pearls Australasia Mirage 1 Pty Ltd., to which an amount of approx. AUD 132.99 Mn. belonging to the Pearls Group, was purportedly diverted. It was further alleged that the Applicant along with other family members of Late Nirmal Singh Bhangoo including his daughters, other son-in-law and son Late Shri Harvinder Singh Bhangoo, held Directorship positions in the said Australian Companies. It was further alleged that the Applicant was also a Director of M/s Maurya Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. an associate concern of the Pearls Group, through which funds to the tune of Rs.7.74 crores were allegedly transferred to M/s Pearls Infrastructure Projects Ltd and subsequently diverted to the aforementioned Australian Companies. Based on these allegations, the Applicant was purportedly named as a con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2025 was issued at 10:30 PM along with grounds of arrest and reason to believe wherein the same contentions had been taken by the Respondent as were mentioned in 2017 and no new document was found by the Respondent even after 9 years. The grounds of arrest and the Arrest Memo were handed over to the Applicant. Later at about 12:15 AM on 22.03.2025 the Applicant was presented at the residence of learned Special Judge, wherein he was remanded to Judicial Custody. 16. On 24.03.2025, the Applicant filed a W.P (C) No.952/2025 titled "Harsatinder Pal Singh Hayer vs. ED" assailing his arrest dated 21.03.2025 under PMLA. 17. The Applicant has been in Judicial Custody since 30.03.2025. The Respondent/Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has concluded its investigations and the Second Supplementary Complaint has already been filed against the Applicant on 19.05.2025, wherein the Applicant has been arrayed as Accused No.22. 18. The Applicant filed a Bail Application on 03.06.2025 for Regular Bail, which was dismissed on 25.07.2025. 19. The Applicant has sought his Bail in the ECIR on the grounds that the contentions raised by the Applicant, have not been considered by the learned Spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cial transactions; therefore, Bail must not be denied. Reference is made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. 26. The Applicant has asserted that though the ECIR was registered on 26.07.2016, the Complaint got to be filed only on 10.09.2018. The First Supplementary Prosecution Complaint was filed later on 20.08.2022. The Second Supplementary Complaint has been filed only on 19.05.2025 in which the Applicant has been named and arrested. It was nearly 9 years after the registration of ECIR and filing of Prosecution Complaint that the present Supplementary Complaint has been filed against the Applicant without any need, reason or necessity on the basis of same facts and allegations which form part of the first Prosecution Complaint. 27. The Applicant has asserted that his arrest was wholly unwarranted and fails to satisfy the well established parameters of "necessity of arrest" as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248 and Radhika Aggarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 449. The Respondent has not demonstrated the existence of any fresh material or changed circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant was one of the Directors of M/s Pearls Australasia Pty Ltd. and M/s Australasia Mirage 1-Pty. Ltd., the funds in question originating from M/s PACL Ltd. were transferred much prior to the Applicant's appointment as Director in the said Companies. 34. The Provisional Attachment Order being PAO No.02/2018 dated 05.01.2018 was passed by the Respondent for attachment of sale proceeds of alleged PACL property in Australia. The Respondent was thus, aware of these transactions and the individuals involved since at least January, 2018 thereby implying that there was no need or necessity to arrest the Applicant on the same allegations nearly 7 years thereafter. 35. The Prosecution Complaint dated 10.09.2018 specifically described the transactions pertaining to the aforesaid two Australian Companies and also noted that the Applicant was a Director in these Companies implying thereby, that the Respondent was all throughout aware of the transactions and the alleged role of the Applicant since 2018. No occasion to arrest the Applicant on the same set of facts arose in 2025. 36. The Applicant was never arrayed as an accused in these proceedings at any juncture nor was he arrested,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rved again asking the Applicant to join the investigations. 40. The allegations against the Applicant that he had destroyed evidence by deleting WhatsApp Business Application from his mobile phone after being intercepted by the Bureau of Immigration at Delhi Airport, is baseless and without any supporting material. At the time when the Applicant was intercepted, his mobile phone was immediately taken away by the Immigration Authorities and was directly handed over to the officials of Respondent No.2. At no point did the Applicant had the access to his device that would have enabled him to delete or tamper with the data. Furthermore, no Forensic Report has been placed on record to substantiate the allegations that the Applicant attempted to destroy or tampered with the evidence. 41. The Applicant is neither in possession of nor has made any use of the alleged proceeds of crime. Furthermore, the nature of the allegations is entirely documentary and there is no allegation or evidence to suggest that the Applicant had derived any personal benefit or monetary gain from the same. He is not active participant in the alleged offence and has not played any direct or indirect role in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entil Balaji vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626; Manish Sisodia vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920; Vijay Nair vs. ED, SLP (Crl.) D. No. 22137/2024; Mahesh Joshi vs. ED, 2025 INSC 1377; Padam Chand Jain vs. ED, SLP (Crl.) 17426/2024; Vaibhav Jain vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 7478; Amandeep Singh Dhall vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 649; Chanpreet Singh rayat vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6264. 49. The Respondents in their detailed Reply which is supported by written submissions, has stated that M/s Pearls Golden Forest Limited and M/s PACL through its illegal and fraudulent activities, had collected thousands of crores of rupees through collective investment Schemes in the garb for sale and development of agricultural land, from investors all over India. It was further alleged that M/s PACL had acquired vast tracts of land from the money collected from the public and started allotting plots which was far from the place of residence of the customers because of which they were unable to take the possession and were forced to take back the money with nominal interest. Also, by such activity M/s Pearls Golden Forest and M/s PACL through their Directors in collusion with others, cheated gullible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that pursuant to Agreement to Sell a partial payment of Rs.15 crores was received in the account of M/s MDB Housing Complex Pvt. Ltd during the period 14.11.2014 to 05.07.2011. During this period, the Applicant was the Director of M/s MDB Housing Complex Pvt. Ltd. and he was actively and knowingly involved in layering, siphoning and dissipating the proceeds of crime. 54. Another FIR No.79/2016 dated 16.07.2020 was registered by Punjab Police in regard to disposal of properties of M/s PACL and its subsidiaries in an illegal and fraudulent manner. In the Chargesheet, the Applicant had been arrayed as an Accused. 55. The conduct of the Applicant during the investigations has been explained wherein it is asserted that he had failed to furnish complete information and documents, as sought in the search conducted on 04.10.2024 in his two premises at Mohali, Punjab and Gurgaon. He was not found present and he failed to join the search proceedings conducted under Section 17 PMLA. Vide summon dated 30.12.2024 duly served upon him via email as disclosed by him as his personal ID in his statement under Section 50 PMLA recorded on 16.12.2018, he was asked to submit oral and documentary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Bail must be satisfied in order to entitle a person to grant the Bail. Reliance is also placed on Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 and Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1. 61. It is further asserted that this Court is not required to render a finding on the guilt of the Applicant nor is it required to conduct a mini-trial or meticulously examine the evidence, rather examine whether the Petitioner has made out a reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty. Reliance is placed on Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624. In the case of Bail in economic offences the Supreme Court in Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy vs. CBI, Criminal Appeal No.730/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3404/2013 had observed that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of Bail. 62. In respect of necessity of arrest, it is contended that the ground raised by the Applicant is not tenable. Certain conditions have been indicated by the Apex Court to be relevant for the purpose of examining the satisfaction of necessity and need to arrest in the case of Arvind Kejriwal,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the two Companies and the named Directors. However, the Applicant herein was not named in the FIR. The Applicant was arrayed as an Accused No. 17 only subsequently, by way of a Supplementary Chargesheet filed on 31.12.2021 i.e. after almost five years. 68. Pertinently, on the basis of the scheduled FIR, the ECIR No. 03/DLZOl2016 was registered under the PMLA in 2016. The Complaint dated 10.09.2018 under Section 44 read with 45 PMLA was filed in this ECIR in the Court. Pertinently, the Applicant herein was neither named in the ECIR nor in the Complaint. The first Supplementary Complaint in the ECIR was filed on 20.08.2022, but the Applicant was again not named as an Accused. 69. It is the consistent submissions made on behalf of the Applicant that all throughout he had been joining the investigation. On 04.10.2024, a raid was conducted at the premises of the Applicant and eventually on 21.03.2025, he was apprehended at the IGI Airport while he was traveling abroad with prior permission of the Court in the CBI case as well as in the FIR registered at Zira, Punjab. The Applicant was then arrested on the same date. Subsequently, the Second Supplementary Complaint dated 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d No.17) by way of Supplementary Chargesheet and in the ECIR by way of Second Supplementary Complaint only in 2025 (Accused No.22). 76. The allegation of active and knowing participation of the Applicant in the laundering of proceeds of crime are by virtue of his position as a Director. In the light of the above said observations, it is difficult to conclude at this stage that he is likely to commit the alleged offence of money laundering in the future. 77. The Applicant had sought Bail on the ground that the arrest was illegal as there was no necessity of arrest. The very fact that the investigation in the predicate offence had commenced in 2014 and in the ECIR in 2016/2017 and that Applicant had throughout joined investigation, there was no necessity of arrest of the Applicant. This contention raised on behalf of the Applicant has some substance since the record shows that he had all throughout cooperated and never made an endeavor either to evade investigation or to withhold the relevant information. Essentially, the entire evidence was documentary in nature. 78. It was contended on behalf of the ED that the issue of necessity of arrest cannot be examined in the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... point, but this aspect is a matter of trial. 84. It cannot be overlooked that the investigation now stands completed and the Supplementary Complaint has already been filed in May 2025. There is little likelihood of him either influencing or obstructing the investigation or preventing the collection of relevant data. 85. As has been rightly argued by behalf of the Applicant, he is not a flight risk as he never attended to abscond or evade the process of law. He, with the permission of the Court, had traveled abroad and had returned on time. The Applicant has deep roots in the society. There are no circumstances brought on record to show that he is likely to flee from the country or that he would not face the trial. Regardless, conditions can always be imposed to ensure the presence of the Applicant during the trial. 86. As has been noticed in the case of Manish Sisodia, (supra) that where the case primarily depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the Prosecution, there is no possibility of tampering of evidence by the Applicant in case he is granted Bail. 87. The Applicant herein not only has satisfied the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 45....