TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1929
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in B.A. No.10189 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2024. He submitted that the petitioner, namely, Ram Prakash Bhatia has been arrayed as accused no.8 in the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(2) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the commission of the offences defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the main complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Raj Kumari and Genda Ram in which the petitioner was not an accused. He further submitted that the said ECIR case was registered on the basis of information received from FIR No.13/2019, dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur and subsequently Final Report has been submitted by the ACB, Jamshedpur bearing No.01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons i.e. Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. He then submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....He further drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 2.8 of the complaint case and submitted that it is alleged that on the basis of information shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Head Quarter on 03.03.2023 an FIR No. 22/2023 was registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Mukesh Mittal and unknown others and the said FIR No.22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. He submitted that the co-accused, namely, Harish Yadav has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3616 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6174 of 2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024. He further submitted that Rajkumari and Genda Ram have been provided relief by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of Section 88 of Cr. P.C. in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61. He submitted that interim relief of no arrest has been granted in favour of the co-accused, namely, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion of the Court to paragraph 5.4.2 (ix) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that the statement of Tara Chand was also recorded later under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein he stated that he used to collect cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia, to whom Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram, on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and the total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores that have been transferred to the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and these are only fake business entries given in lieu of commission. He further submitted that four bank accounts of Tara Chand were operated by Harish Yadav on the instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. By way of referring para 5.4.2 (x) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that the Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that in the year 2022, Ram Prakash Bhatia (petitioner) gave him bank accounts and asked him to provide entries therein against the cash provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia. He further stated that Tara ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra). He submitted that those cases are distinguishable in the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the bail application of Veerendra Kumar Ram has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and the bail application of Tara Chand has been rejected in B.A. No.11095 of 2023. On these grounds, he submitted that the regular bail application, so far as the petitioner is concerned, may kindly be rejected. 5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the allegation made against the petitioner and finds that so far as Ram Prakash Bhatia is concerned, he was the main person who was managing all the things and how money transactions were made that have been disclosed in paras 5.4.2(ix), 5.4.2(x) and 5.4.2(xi) of complaint (supra). Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram on the instruction of this petitioner and total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores have been transferred in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and operated by Harish Yada....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, ―Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority. Hence, the need to be extra conscious." 8. In paragraph no.284 of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eraj Mittal in lieu of providing cash. The petitioner was found to be directly involved or assisted in the process or activity which are related to proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.4.545 Crores and he received commission of Rs.4.5 Lakhs from Mukesh Mittal for providing entries into the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha. 10. Further, the cases of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Tara Chand have already been dismissed by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and B.A. No.11095 of 2023 respectively. 11. So far as Mukesh Mittal is concerned, he has been granted bail on the ground of health issue. 12. The allegation against Harish Yadav is that he was acting on the advise of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. Thus, he is found to be an employee of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that prima facie the role of Harish Yadav is not direct and in view of that, he has been granted bail. 13. So far as Raj Kumari and Genda Ram are concerned, they have been given benefit of Section 88 Cr. P.C. in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar. 10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent claimed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may extend up to seven years with fine.], 13(1)(c)/(d) read with Section 13(2) [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of four years and may extend up to ten years with fine.] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ It is to be noted that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was amended by 'the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013', Act 1 of 2014 (w.e.f. 16-1-2014). This amendment has increased the minimum prescribed punishment under Sections 8, 9, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.] . Therefore, Sanjay Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] provides no assistance for the respondent herein. 13. We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a differe....