TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for short, "PMLA"). 2. BRIEF FACTS :- 2.1 M/s Mahira Homes Pvt. Ltd is the holding company of various other associate companies, including M/s Sai Aaina Farms Pvt. Ltd. (for short, "SAFPL"), M/s Czar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Mahira Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.) (for short "M/s Czar") and M/s Mahira Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (for short "M/s Mahira Buildtech"), which are dealing with construction projects in Sectors 68, 103 & 104; respectively, at Gurugram. 2.2 On 17.05.2016, the SAFPL applied for an affordable Housing Project under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban for construction of 1500 Flats in the land measuring 9.96875 acres, situated in revenue estate of Village Badshahpur, Sector 68, Gurugram. 2.3 On the basis of above request, the Director General, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, (for short, "DGTCP") issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) vide Memo. No.LC-3298-JE(VA)2017/27074 dated 27.10.2017 in favour of SAFPL. In order to comply with the terms & conditions of the aforesaid LOI, the SAFPL furnished two Bank Guarantees issued by IDBI Bank i.e. (i) LC No.3298 B.G No. 1401381BGF00103 for an amount of Rs. 2,63,23,892/- towards External Development Charges (EDC); and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R Nos. 10 & 11 dated 14.01.2021 (supra) as nullity. 2.10 Subsequently, four more FIRs were registered against the petitioner as well as other co-accused and which are as under :- FIR No. Police Station Offences Remarks 0175 dt.18.05.2022 Rajendra Park, Gurugram Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC Final report No.1 was submitted on 08.06.2023 and Supplementary Report No.1-B was submitted on 17.01.2024 0151 dt.31.05.2023 Rajendra Park, Gurugram Sections 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC Under investigation 0152 dt. 01.06.2023 Rajendra Gurugram Park, Sections 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC Under investigation 0151 dt. 05.07.2023 Sushant Gurugram Lok, Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, & 471 IPC Under investigation 2.11 On 30.04.2024, E.D. issued an arrest order against petitioner under Section 19 of PMLA and he challenged the same before this Court vide CRM-M- 22478-2024; but could not succeed as it was dismissed on 27.08.2024. The above order was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 12541-2024, which was ordered to be listed with SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6100-6101- 2024. However, vide order dated 17.09....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, investigation is going on. Still further contended that pre-trial detention is not favoured by the law; rather bail is the rule and jail is an exception. 3.7 Again contended that petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2024; complaint under Section 44 of the PMLA was filed before learned Special Court on 27.06.2024; cognizance has already been taken on 05.12.2024; but charges are yet to be considered. Also contended that there are more than 32 prosecution witnesses and almost 152 documents which are running into 4000 pages; thus, there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future. Thus, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose. 3.8 In support of the above contentions, learned Senior counsel has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) Ramkripal Meena Versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online SC 2276; (ii) Manish Sisodia Versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online 1920; (iii) Bhagwan Bhagat Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Crl. Appeal No.3392 of 2024; (iv) Kalvakuntla Kavita Versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SC Onlilne SC 2269; (v) Prem Prakash Versus Uni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs to the tune of about Rs.363 Crore. Also submitted that petitioner has usurped the hard-earned money of poor people, who cannot afford their own roof; invested in these projects, which were shown to be under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna- Urban. 4.4 Further submitted that in case the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he will misuse the concession and hamper the fair trial. Lastly submitted that in economic offences, bail is not the rule; rather it is an exception; thus the prayer of petitioner for grant of bail pending trial warrants dismissal. 4.5 In support of his submissions, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon various judicial pronouncements and which are as under :- (i) PGI of Medical Education & Research Versus Raj Kumar (2001) 2 SCC 54; (ii) State of Bihar and another Versus Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751; (iii) Religare Finvest Limited Versus State of NCT of Delhi and another, Crl. MC-796 of 2021 (Delhi); (iv) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Versus Union of India and others, 2022 SCC Online SC 929; (v) Manish Sisodia Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl.) No.8167 of 2023; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on against the remaining co- accused, then a supplementary complaint would be filed against the petitioner under Section 44(1)(d)(ii) of the PMLA. 10. There is no quarrel that petitioner was arrested on 30.04.2024; thus, he is in custody for the last 09 months; except from taking cognizance, there is no other progress of the trial and the charges are yet to be considered by learned Special Court. There are 32 prosecution witnesses cited by the E.D in their complaint and as such, it would be very difficult to say that trial is likely to be completed in the near future; rather there seems to be "no possibility" that trial would be concluded in a reasonable time. 11. Although, learned counsel for the E.D. vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the premise that there is a specific bar for bail under Section 45 of PMLA, but such a plea would not disentitle him from seeking bail in the present case due to the following reasons :- (i) Till date, out of total 1500 home buyers, none has raised any complaint against the petitioner; (ii) It would not be out of place to mention here that in case of delay in completion of project(s) by any Promoter/Director a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception." These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time." 12. Thus, in such a scenario; particularly, in view of the mandate of Article 21, the interdict stipulated under Section 45 of the PMLA would not be a bar for granting bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 13. Although, learned counsel for E.D. emphatically opposed the prayer on the ground that this Court while examining the arrest order of the petitioner, dismissed CRM-M-22478-2024 vide order dated 27.08.2024 and opined that "prima facie the offence of money laundering is clearly made out against the petitioner". However, the above submission is not helpful to the E.D for the simple reason that this Court while passing the above order clarified in the penultimate paragraph, as under :- "The above observatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....c offence involved; hence distinguishable. 3) In Religare Finvest's case (supra), the bail was cancelled by Delhi High Court keeping in view the gravity of the offence as the scam involved amount of Rs.2400 crores. No dictum of law was laid down by the Court. 4) Vijay Madanlal's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that economic offences stand on a graver footing as they not only involve an individual victim, but harm the society as a whole. There is no quarrel with this proposition of law. 5) In Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI's case and Manish Sisodia Vs. E.D .. 's case (ibid), it was observed that delay in trial shall not ipso facto result in grant of bail to the accused. The Court will have to examine the facts and circumstances of each case. The dictum of law is very much acknowledged by this Court. 6) Tarun Kumar case (supra), it was held that 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....