TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 1653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioner Kamlesh Kothari in case titled. "State v. Kamlesh Kothari" was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2021 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Similarly the bail application filed by Petitioner B. Mohan Raj in case titled "State v. Sukesh Chadrashekhar & ors" was dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2022 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge and the bail application filed by Petitioner Leena Paulose in case titled "State v. Sukesh Chadrashekhar & ors" was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2022 by Learned Additional Sessions Judge. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are: i. The present FIR no.208/2021 has been registered under sections 170, 384, 386, 388, 419, 420, 406, 409, 506, 186, 353, 468, 471, 120-B IPC ; section 66-D of IT Act and sections 3/4 MCOCA at PS Special cell, on the basis of complaint of Ms. Aditi S. Singh/Complainant alleging therein that on 15.06.2020 she received a call from one landline number on her mobile phone in which the caller introduced himself as a senior officer in Ministry of Law and proposed to help her in securing bail for her husband who was running in Judicial Custody in cases related to M/s Religare Enterprises Ltd. ii. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther advantages. As reflected from charge sheets filed that accused Leena Paulose was earlier involved in four criminal cases alongwith accused Sukash Chander Shekar prior to registration of present case. vii. From the analysis of CDR/IPDR, it was revealed that accused Leena Paulose was in continuous contact with Sukash through cell phone who was using cell phone while in prison with the help of jail staff. She allegedly procured bank entries in her account from various entitites/persons to whom she provided cash, received from Sukash through Hawala transactions with the help of Joel Daniel Jose, Kamlesh Kothari, B Mohanraj and Arun Muthu etc. and invested in high end cars, properties and her business firms. It is stated that 23 High end luxury cars were seized from her house. Accused Leena allegedly made the payment of "Silent Calling App" which was being used by accused Sukash to commit the crime, while he was in jail. viii. During investigation, accused Leena Paulose, Pradeep ramdani, Arun Muthu, B. Mohanraj, Joel Danial Jose, Kamlesh Kothari and Sukashchander Shekar were arrested. The accused Kamlesh Kothari was arrested on 05.09.2021 and is in judicial custod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds which was found in the possession of Leena. He even facilitated in making of rental agreement between Surender Panwar and M/s Nail Artistry (Leena). After deducting the tax from the monthly rent Surender Panwar returned the amount in cash to Kamlesh who delivered the same to Mohan Raj or Leena. Kamlesh also facilitated to buy another car 'Bentely' out of the extorted funds in the name of M/s Priyanaka Arcade which was found to be in possession of Leena. Kamlesh's brother Manish Kothari also executed hire purchase agreement with M/s Nail Artistry for three cars to facilitate the syndicate in turning their black money (extorted funds) into white money. Kamlesh also introduced his relative Jitendra Kothari to purchase benami property to the tune of Rs 7 crores on behalf of the syndicate out of the extorted funds in his name. One rental agreement was also prepared by him with the aid of another syndicate member namely Mohanraj between Jitender Kothari and Leena Paulose so that the rental amount which was transferred by Leena to Jitender can be returned to her after deducting the tax amount. He and B Mohanraj also received the cash amount sent by Sukesh through his aids....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61 crpc had transferred Rs 2.90 Cr. from different accounts into the bank account of Leena's firm M/s Super Car Artistry on the commission of 1%. During investigation Alok Damani in his statement 161 crpc stated that he was contacted by one person namely Sunil Kumar from mobile No.+17242765376 and he introduced himself as secretary to accused Leena Paulose and Mr. Shekhar office and handles their firm M/s LS corporation. After that Alok Damani received a call from accused Leena Paulose from mobile No.8011151608 for booking another artist for an event in Kochi. Leena stated that Mr. Sunil shared his number with her and also advised to book a celebrity for Kochi event. 7. During investigation Nora Fatehi in her statement u/s 161 and 164 crpc stated that she attended a charitable event in Chennai organized by accused Leena Paulose for her firm M/s LS corporation. On the day of event in Chennai, prior to the event, she was in her hotel room. Leena came in her Hotel Room and made her talk to her husband Sukash Chandra Shekar on her mobile phone. During investigation Shoby T. Paul in his statement u/s 161 crpc stated that through him Leena booked charted flights for Sukesh Chandra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sure statement that petitioner B. Mohanraj had introduced his friend Kamlesh Kothari, a high-end car dealer in T Nagar to Leena from whom Leena bought 3 cars, Range Rover Sport, Bentley and Fortuner. It was stated that the cars were bought in cash on paper and payments were made by others. Petitioner B. Mohanraj stated that he and Kamlesh arranged all this and got huge commission. It has also come in the disclosure statement of Petitioner B. Mohanraj that Sukash called him on Telegram and asked him to buy a house for Leena in some other person's name during August 2020 which he discussed with Kamlesh Kothari and finalized the deal. Petitioner B. Mohanraj stated that Sukash sent cash Rs.7.75 Crores through Sudheer and Joel and handed over the money to Kamlesh Kothari at his office at T. Nagar in his presence. 11. It came in the disclosure statement of B. Mohanraj that Leena occupied the said house and did the renovation work. It was also came in the statement that a rental agreement for this house was entered between Leena and Jitendra Kothari for Rs 2.5 lakhs, from January 2021 and Leena used to send the monthly rent through RTGS to Jitendra Kothari and he in turn used to de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n by the competent Court in the last 10 years. Learned senior counsel submitted that there is no allegation that the Applicant has engaged in continuing unlawful activity. Learned senior counsel submitted that the list of previous cases of criminal conspiracy and other offences as stated in the charge-sheet only reflect on the activities of other co-accused regarding their impersonation as government officers and such acts cannot be attributed to the applicant in any of the cases. It has been submitted that therefore no offence under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act. Learned senior counsel has submitted that prosecution has alleged that that the Applicant was in possession of unaccountable wealth in terms of land and monies however, the investigation could not substantiate the allegation. It has also been submitted that there is no allegation in the chargesheet qua the applicant before the alleged commission of extortion or during the course of extortion. It has been submitted that even as per case of the prosecution, the role of the applicant started after extortion was over on the ground that he allegedly facilitated the buying of properties for Leena Paulose, wife of the main accused ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bstantive evidence. The reliance has been placed upon Kashmira Singh v State of HP Cr.MP(M) No.1741 of 2020; Hari Charan Kurmi v State of Bihar (1964) 6 SCR 623 ; Param Hans Yadav v State of Bihar (1987) 2 SCC 197; Kalpnath Rai v State (1997) 8 SCC 732; Jayendra Saraswathi v State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 2 SCC 13; Mahabir Viswas v State of West Bengal. 15. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on statement/confession recorded under Section 18(3) of MCOCA which requires that a certificate of the police officer recording the statement must be there at the bottom of the confession after the statement is recorded. It has been submitted that in all the statements that are recorded under Section 18 (3) of the Act, there is no certificate of the officers and therefore statements which do not comply with the mandate of Section 18 (3) of the Act cannot be relied upon. Learned senior counsel further emphasized that the disclosure statement by co-accused/co-conspirators are not voluntary. 16. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the Facts stated or acts done after the conspiracy is over are not admissible. It has been submitted that in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.307/2023, Dhiraj Kumar Shukla vs. State of UP SLP Crl. No.6690/2022, Jitendera Jain vs. NCB & Anr. SLP Crl.No.8900/2022 and AbulHossain Mondal vs. state of WB SLP Crl. 3400/2022. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER KAMLESH KOTHARI 18. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner Kamlesh Kothari submitted that there is no evidence to establish any nexus whatsoever between the Petitioner and the offences as alleged in the FIR. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen who has been wrongfully and maliciously dragged into criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR. It has been submitted that even if facts of the allegations as asserted in the FIR are taken to be true, the offences in the FIR are not made out as provisions of MCOCA, 1999 are not applicable to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel submitted that the applicant is not an accused in any of the charge-sheet filed against the accused persons. It has been submitted that in order to invoke the provisions of MCOCA,1999 against a person alleging him to be involved in the commission of any 'organized crime' by acting as a member of an 'organised crime syndicate' or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, intent or mens rea. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioner Kamlesh Kothari was approached by co-accused B.Mohanrajon behalf, Leena Paulose (proprietor of M/s Nail Artistry and M/s Supercar Artistry), who wanted to purchase luxury cars on finance for the family. It has been submitted that the petitioner's family has only financed cars for M/s Nail Artistry under legitimate hire purchase agreements and further bought cars from M/s Supercar Artistry, which in the course of their usual business, where they deal and transact with multiple customers. Learned senior counsel submitted that even as per charge- sheet the petitioner has only received a sum of Rs.23,50,000/- as commission on sale of cars and not the extortion amount of Rs. 200 Cr. It has been submitted that there is not even an iota of evidence to show the nexus of the petitioner with the extortion activity alleged to be committed against the complainant. It has been submitted that even as per fact the complainant received the first call from the main accused on 15th June 2020 whereas the first payment of extortion was made by complainant in July 2020. It has further been submitted that petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further been submitted that since the trial will take a long time, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted to bail. 23. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon Mohd. Muslim vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine 352, where it has been inter alia held that if the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty, bail should be granted to the accused. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon Mohamad Iliyas Mohamad Bilal Kapadia v The State of Gujrat, SLP (Crl) No. 1815 of 2022 decided on 30th May 2022 to buttress his contention that minimum two charge sheets are required where applicant/accused has been previously accused with other members of the alleged crime synidicate to establish unlawful activity which is an essential requirement for invoking the crime under Section 3 of MOCOCA in relation to the applicant/accused. Learned senior counsel also placed reliance upon State of Maharastra v Lalit Somdatta Nagpal, (2007) 4 SCC 171 in which it was inter alia held that if the material is not available to show that accused has been involved in any continuing u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ely arrested in this case on 20.09.2021. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a Dentist Doctor / Model, Actor, successful Business Women, with strong roots in society, and belongs to a respectable and educated family. It has been submitted that the petitioner in good faith and as a dutiful wife, complied with many of the suggestions/ demands of her accused husband in good faith, without understanding various alleged issues and consequences involved. It has been submitted that the petitioner was made to understand that, the amount credited in her Bank account are all loans taken/arranged by her husband for business and there was nothing to disbelieve her husband and the applicant was paying the EMI for the Loan as is generally done. 27. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was earning well as reflected from the Income Tax Return filed for the assessment year 2020 -2021 showing an income of Rs.43,69,050.00. Learned counsel submitted that the allegations are baseless and petitioner has been implicated only because she is the wife of the main accused. Learned counsel submitted that there is no case of unjust, dishonest or malafide intentions attributed to the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ature and they are not entitled to be admitted to bail. Learned ASG submitted that the learned special judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the petitioners vide a detailed and reasoned order and there is no ground to interfere in the same. Learned ASG submitted that the all the petitioners have been active member of the organized crime syndicate being run by Sukash Chander Shekhar for carrying out an organized crime. Learned ASG submitted that the requirement of filing of more than one chargesheets as specified under Section 2 (1) (d) of MCOCA is not individual centric but is syndicate centric and this aspect is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka and Others; (2022) 12 SCC 753. Reliance has also been placed upon Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra). Learned ASG submitted that in MCOCA a person can be prosecuted even if his role is of a facilitator or of an abettor as referred to in Sections 3 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4) or 3 (5) of MCOCA. Learned ASG submitted that in the present case the provisions of MCOCA were added in a pre-existing FIR bearing No .: 208 of 2021, registered by Special Cell, Delhi Police, u/s .: 170, 186, 384, 38....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproval Order u/s. 23 (1)(a) of MCOCA it is not necessary to include the names of all the members at the threshold stage. It has been submitted that as the investigation proceeds, revealing the involvement and identity of more and more members, their names can always be added later on. Reliance has been placed upon Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra; (2007) 3 SCC 633. It has also been submitted that the approval order under Section 23 (1) (a) of MCOCA is with respect to the offence and not with respect to the offender. Learned ASG submitted that validity for sanction for the prosecution under Section 23 (2) of MCOCA is a matter of trial. Learned ASG submitted that under Section 21 (4) of MCOCA, it is necessary that accused must pass the twin conditions as prescribed under Section 21 (4) of MCOCA for grant of bail. 34. Learned ASG has also placed reliance on the Confessional statement u/s 18 MCOC Act of Dharam Singh Meena, statements under Section 164 Cr. P.C. of Jitendra Kothari and statement of Gaffar Khan under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Reliance has also been placed upon disclosure statement of accused Arun Mutthu indicating the role of petitioner B. Mohan Raj. Learned ASG hig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence. However, this question has come up for consideration before the Supreme court in Kavitha Lankesh (supra) wherein it was held that requirement of more than one charge-sheets is in reference to the continuing unlawful activities of the organised crime syndicate and not qua individual member thereof. 40. Similarly, in Zakir Abdul Mirajkar (supra) the Supreme court has inter alia held that it is settled law that that more than one charge sheet is required to be filed in respect of the organized crime syndicate and not in respect of each person who is alleged to be a member of such a syndicate. 41. Similarly in Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra; (2009) SCC Online Bom 770, it was inter alia held that if within a period of preceding ten years, one charge-sheet has been filed in respect of organized crime committed by the members of a particular crime syndicate, the said charge-sheet can be taken against a member of the said crime syndicate for the purpose of application of the MCOCA against him even if he is involved in one case. 42. In fact dealing with all these judgment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an one charge-sheet have been filed" used in section 2(d) of the Act and has held as follows: "35. It is now necessary to go to the definition of 'continuing unlawful activity'. Section 2(1)(d) defines 'continuing unlawful activity' to mean an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one chargesheet have been filed before a competent court within the preceding ten years and that court have taken cognizance of such offence. Thus, for an activity to be a 'continuing unlawful activity' - a) the activity must be prohibited by law; b) it must be a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more; c) it must be undertaken singly or jointly; d) it must be undertaken as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate e) in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent court. 36. The words ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st him. Finally, it is alleged that accused D is a member of organized crime syndicate as described in Section 3(4) of the MCOCA and as such has indulged in organized crime and against whom also one charge-sheet is filed. 39. The submission on behalf of the appellant is that even though all the four accused namely, A, B, C and D may be members of the organized crime syndicate since against each of the accused not more than one chargesheet is filed, it cannot be held that they are engaged in continuing unlawful activity as contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA. Apart from the reasons which we have given hereinabove as to why such a construction is not possible, having regard to the object with which the MCOCA was enacted, namely to make special provisions for prevention and control of organized crime syndicate and for coping with criminal activity by organized crime syndicate, in our opinion, Section 2(1)(d) cannot be so construed. Such a construction will defeat the object of the MCOCA. What is contemplated under Section 2(1)(d) of the MCOCA is that activities prohibited by law for the time being in force which are punishable as described therein have been undert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the members of the crime syndicate, who operates as individually or jointly in commission of organised crime. What is required to be taken note of is the very involvement, attachment, nexus or the link of such member/person with the organised crime syndicate while commission of the offence, the very link of such member of the crime syndicate is considered to be the crux of the term "continuing unlawful activity". It is also required to be taken note of the fact that if the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicants i.e. the requirement of the statute, in their submission, is the pendency of the minimum two charge-sheets for an offence punishable with more than three years imprisonment in the last period of ten years is to be accepted, the same shall take the very object and intention of the statute to illogical end. What is contemplated under section 2(1)(d) of MCOCA is the activities prohibited by the law have been undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate and as such the requirement of one or more charge-sheets is in relation to the unlawful activity of the unlawful crime syndicate and not of each and every member of such syndica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to be rejected. 49. The next contention raised by the learned counsels for the petitioners are that the confessional statement recorded under Section 18 of MCOCA cannot be read against them in absence of any independent corroboration. The defence has also raised a plea that since the procedural requirement under Section 18 have not been fulfilled therefore the same cannot be read. It has also been submitted that the confessional statement which have been retracted cannot be taken into consideration. I consider that these submissions also cannot be considered at this ground as it is a matter of trial. 50. It is also a settled proposition that the confessional statement can also be attributed to the co-accused in Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 14 SCC 641, wherein inter alia has been held as under: "84. So far as the conviction (of Accused 1) under MCOCA is concerned, it is quite clear that conviction could be based solely on the basis of the confessional statement itself and such conviction is also permissible on the basis of the confessional statement of the coaccused which could be used and relied upon for the purpose of conviction." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stage of trial. Reliance can be placed upon Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra; (2022) 8 SCC 282 "63. The learned counsel for the State has fairly and rightly indicated, with reference to the decision of this Court in Vinod G. Asrani [Vinod G. Asrani v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 3 SCC 633 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 129], that the validity of sanction could always be determined by the trial court during the course of trial where the sanctioning authority could be examined and the appellant will have sufficient opportunity to contest the same, including that of cross- examining the sanctioning authority. In fact, the High Court has also taken care in its impugned order to make it clear that the observations were only prima facie and nothing in the order would influence or prejudice the trial or pre-empt any legitimate defence of the appellant." 53. In Farman Imran Shah v. State of Maharashtra; (2014) SCC Online Bom 408, it was inter-alia held as under; "18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Nanduskar v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 12 LJSOFT 156, after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not the import of section 23 of MCOC Act. Section 23(1)(a) as well as section 23(2) with reference to approval and sanction speaks of commission of offence and cognizance of the offence. In fact the law on this aspect is also well settled and reiterated by the Apex Court in Dilawar Singh's case (supra) itself. It was held therein that, court takes cognizance of offence and not of an offender when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence, under Section 190 Cr. P.C. Undoubtedly, it was also held that it was necessary for the Sanctioning Authority to take note of the persons against whom the sanction is sought to be granted. However, those were the requirement under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said section specifically requires sanction with reference to a particular person. That is not the case under section 23 either in relation to the approval or in relation to the sanction. As already seen above section 23(1)(a) of MCOC Act speaks of approval for recording of information about commission of offence of organized crime under MCOC Act, whereas sanction is for initiating proceeding for the offence under MCOC Act. The sanction order or the approval orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ukash was using mobile phone with the connivance of jail staff during custody period. Further, she also remained in contact with Sukash's associates jail officials namely Dharm Singh Meena and Subhash Batra. Thus, she was actively and continuously coordinating with Sukash as well as his associates in furtherance of organized crime and disposal of crime proceeds. She procured bank entries in her account from various entities/persons to whom she provided cash, received from Sukash through Hawala transactions with the help of Joel Daniel Jose, Kamlesh Kothari, B Mohanraj and Arun Muthu etc. and invested in high end cars, properties and her business firms. The Enforcement Directorate, seized 23 High end luxury cars from her house at ECR Chennai in Aug 2021. During interrogation, the accused applicant failed to justify as to how she got funds to purchase 12 cars in Super Car Artistry. Further, it was revealed that she made the payment of "Silent Calling App" which was being used by accused Sukash in his mobile phone, to commit the crime, while he was in Jail. 58.During investigation, the statements of Mr. Noufal T S/o Late Hamza Koya Thyayyil, Mr. Surendar Panwar s/o Sh. Satya Na....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ICICI BANK The Nail Artistry 603305020662 ICICI BANK 61. During the period of the offence, i.e. June 2020 to August 2021 while the complainant was extorted by the crime syndicate, an amount of Rs. 21 Crores were deposited into the above mentioned five bank accounts maintained by Lena Paulose which were either in her own name or in the name of her Proprietorship concerns. Further, investigation revealed that this amount consists of cash deposit, card swiping and entries arranged through Arun Muthu, B Mohanraj and their associates. This money was nothing but crime proceeds. Accused Leena Paulose and other members of syndicate took entries, deposited cash, and indulged in card swiping to inflate the earnings of her saloon Nail Artistry. All this was done to give legitimacy to the crime proceeds through sham banking transactions. Accused Arun Muthu in addition to his company M/s Stash Wears Pvt Ltd, also provided entries for adjusting the crime proceed through firms namely M/s Servana Enterprises, M/s Goodtime Retail and Marketing Pvt Ltd, M/s Muthaiya Enterprises, M/s INI International through Mr. Shiva Subaramaniyam, who is known to Arun Muthu. Statement of Shiva Suba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or Leena. The above car was recovered from the possession of Leena. The buying of the above mentioned car through the money received from Hawala clearly demonstrate that the present applicant was active member of the organized crime syndicate led by Sukash in disposal of the extorted amount from the complainant. In the raid by the Enforcement Directorate, the said Car was recovered from the possession of Leena. 64. Similarly, likewise, as mentioned about "Lamborgini Urus" another car "Bentley' was allegedly also purchased in name of one firm M/s Priyanka Arcade. In similar manner, Rs 1.50 Crores out of the extorted funds were transferred with the help of Kamlesh Kothari and the same was used by Leena & Sukash. Kamlesh disclosed that said amount was handed over to the owner of M/s Priyanka Arcade by present applicant. However, during investigation, Mr. Francis Bastiyan, owner of M/s Priyanka Arcade submitted that he had received part payments from Kamlesh and remaining from other parties. In the raid by the Enforcement Directorate, the said Car was recovered from the possession of Leena. Manish Kothari, brother of Kamlesh Kothari had executed Hire/Purchase agreement with M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from Dubai on the basis of token provided by him to Mohanraj from June-Oct. 2020. Thus, the investigation revealed that the money which was sent by Sukash through Hawala was the proceeds of crime and was in the knowledge of the present applicant and the applicant actively facilitated in the disposal of the proceeds of crime. The case of the prosecution is that he accused Sukash with active connivance of the present petitioners extorted Rs.214 Cr. from the complainant in a very organized manner and the extorted money was used in different ways including investing the same in purchase of luxury cars, house and other movable and immovable properties. The investigation revealed that the accused Kamlesh Kothari has played pivotal role in commission of crime. The investigation revealed that accused Kamlesh Kothari came in touch with accused Sukashthrough co-accused Mohanraj.He managed to get invested ill-gottenmoney of accused Sukash in purchase of luxury cars & house. It has also been alleged that he received the cash through co-accused Mohanraj and got the money used by diverting it through different entities and invested the money of the crime syndicate The disclosure statement of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner B. Mohanraj admitted that he became integral part of their group and though overtly he was managing their legal affairs, but covertly he was managing their funds obtained from their illegal activities. It is also revealed during the investigation that in fact it was petitioner B. Mohanraj who introduced co-accused Kamlesh Kothari to another co-accused Leena Paulose. It was also admitted by petitioner B. Mohanraj that principal accused Sukash called him on telegram and asked him to buy a house for co- accused Leena in some other person's name during August, 2020. Principal accused Sukash also in his confessional statement revealed the role of petitioner B.Mohanraj. It came on the record that the cash was delivered to B. Mohanraj and he further delivered to Kamlesh Kothari and Arun Muthu. 70. Learned Trial Court while rejecting the bail of accused Kamlesh Kothari has observed that in the present case the Petitioner is seen acting as an agent of co-accused Leena Paulose. He was involved in arranging money in lieu of cash and then he was active in buying car and after this he organised this car on lease to accused Leena. The inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hermore, the Petitioner failed to explain the details of such entries credited in her bank account. Learned trial Court inter-alia observed that the disclosure statement of other accused persons as well as from the documentary evidence and statement of other witnesses clearly show that the extortion money was allegedly being collected through various channels on the instructions of applicant/accused Leena Paul as well as B. Mohanraj. During the relevant time when accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar was in prison, applicant/accused Leena allegedly purchased different luxury cars, but failed to explain as to how she got such huge amount of money for purchasing those cars. Learned Trial Court has further observed that even though it is not required to go into the merits of the case however it is pertinent to mention here that there exists different evidences which show that the Petitioner not only gained pecuniary advantage from the extortion money received through other accused persons, on different occasions from the complainant in this case but was also actively coordinating with main accused Sukesh Chandra Shekhar while he was in prison. Accused/applicant was allegedly communicating wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that he is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 75. It is a settled proposition that such provision do not impose complete restriction on the grant of bail. It is also a settled proposition that at this stage the court cannot evaluate the material on the scale which is required at the time of the conclusion of the trial. The court has not to record the finding of guilt or acquittal at this stage. The court is only required to see that whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused persons have not committed offence. The reasonable grounds as stated above are more than prima facie grounds. It can also be said that at this stage, the court has to see the preponderance of probabilities. If there is preponderance of probabilities that the accused can be convicted on the material available, the bail is liable to be rejected. 76. It is a settled proportion that at the stage of bail, the meticulous examination of evidence is not required at this stage so as to not cause any prejudice to the parties. The probative value of the witnesses also cannot be examined at this stage. At the stage of bail, the mini trial is t....