TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isted by Sri P. Chakrawarthy, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. 2. This application has been moved by the applicants namely Garima Bhushan, Karuna Singh and SunnyYadav for being released on bail in Special Case No. 08 of 2017 arising out of RC/DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.07.2015 under sections 109 read with section 120B IPC and 13(2) and 13[(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. It would be pertinent to mention here the previous orders passed in this matter. On 7.5.2018 following order was passed. Heard Sri Dinesh Kakkar, Sri O.P. Tripathi, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I. On10.4.2018, this Court passed the following order:- Sri Manish Gupta, Advocate, has filed his power on behalf of applicants and the same is taken on record. He further stated that he has taken no objection from previous counsel, Sri Om Prakash Tripathi, earlier engaged in this case, who is also present along with him before this Court. Heard Sri Manish Gupta, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the trial court vide order dated 15.03.2018 and against the same, they have approached this Court and filed the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Gupta has fairly conceded that he does not want to press his prayer for furnishing bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicants and states that the bail application of the applicants be heard by this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. without their being taken into custody, to which Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has stated that as the trial court has rejected the bail application of the applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the custody, if had to be taken by the trial court and could not be taken due to the above order of the Apex Court, he would not press for the applicants to be taken into custody for hearing of the present bail application. It is pertinent to mention here the relevant provision for hearing a bail application before this Court as provided under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which is as follows: Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. 439. (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct- (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s drawn out attention to the application dated 15.3.2018 filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Paragraph 9 thereof reads as under:- 9. That, all the three applicants above named are present today i.e. 15.3.2018 before this Hon'ble Court in terms of the order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the common WP (Crl.) 59 of 2018 preferred by them under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is clear from the above that there was a specific avernment made in the application that the petitioners were present in the Court in terms of order dated 14.3.2018 passed by this Court. Therefore, it was permissible for the Court to treat the said averment as surrender by the petitioners and take them into custody and then decide the application for bail Learned counsel has shown judgment in 'Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.' [2014 16 SC 623] and clarifies that there was no inhibition to consider the application for bail on merits. We, thus, permit the petitioners to approach the High Court again and file an application on the same basis. It would be open to the High Court to treat the presence of the petitioners as surrender and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny, within the same period. List the matter again on 21st May, 2018. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the order of the Apex Court in the matter on 19.4.2018 modified on 1.5.2018, we grant interim bail to the applicants. Let the applicants, namely, Garima Bhushan, Karuna Singh and Sunny Singh involved in Special Case No. 08 of 2017 arising out of R/C/DST/2015/A/0003/CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.7.2015 under sections 109 read with 120-B I.P.C. and 13 (2) and 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered with CBI, New Delhi be released on interim bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Anti Corruption, C.B.I. Cases), Ghaziabad on or before 11.5.2018. The Special Judge (Anti Corruption, C.B.I. Cases), Ghaziabad shall ensure that if the applicants have any passport, the same shall be deposited and the applicants may not leave the country without the permission of this Court. It is made clear that all the three applicants shall remain present before this Court on the next date fixed failing which coercive action shall be taken against them. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was married on 19.11.2008 with Sri Narender Kumar Singh, IPS (JH:2006). Sunny Yadav, son of Yadav Singh was born on 30.09.1985 and did his B.Tech (Civil) from Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi during the period 2005 to 2009 and he joined as Manager Grade-I in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority on 25.2.2010 and since then he has been working there with the same designation. He remained posted in Division-III of the Greater Noida Authority. He was married with Ms. Shreshtha, who is a house wife and did her B.Tech from ABES University, Ghaziabad. During investigation, it was decided to keep the check period 01.04.2004 to 04.08.2015 i.e. the date of search based on the maximum acquisition of the assets. During the investigation, income, expenditures and assets of Yadav Singh, Kusum Lata, Sunny Yadav and Shreshtha Singh were clubbed considering that these persons were residing under one roof at A-10, Sector 51, Noida. However, income, assets and expenditure of Garima Bhushan and Karuna Singh, the daughters of Yadav Singh, who are living separately with their husbands since their marriage, were not taken into consideration. The movable assets of Sunny Yadav are shown to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... most of the business transactions shown in the companies were fake and managed through accommodation entries against cash or were gimmicks of accounts. He also claimed capital of ₹ 50,000/- by selling the 10,000 shares of M/s. K.S. Ultratech Pvt. Ltd. at premium to Kumar Saurav. However, the said benefit was not given to him in view of the fact that source of money to purchase the said shares was arranged by family members of Yadav Singh for Kumar Saurav. It is further revealed that he claimed short term capital gain of ₹ 70,823/- during financial year 2007-08 to 2009-10 by transaction of shares, and suffered a net loss of ₹ 51,188 in these share transactions instead of profit claimed. He has shown net income of ₹ 2,34,021 from his proprietary firm M/s. Infratech Engineers. Investigation revealed that a gross receipt of ₹ 5,01,625/- was shown during financial year 2007-08 out of which ₹ 3.15 lacs less TDS of ₹ 32,000/- was shown from M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. The income shown from M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. was in fact shown professional fee of Mohan Rathi for rendering the service of accounting for M/s. Millennium Impex Pvt. Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er arrested during investigation nor produced in custody under section 170 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court was also pleased to enlarge co-accused Ompal Singh in the connected case on interim bail. The applicants' bail application has been mechanically rejected on 15.3.2018 by the trial court. The applicant no.1 is elder daughter of Sri Yadav Singh who after having completed fashion designing course from NIFT, Delhi in 2003 was married with Sri Shashi Bhushan Lal Sushil, IAS (UP;2001) on 4.11.2003 and she has a son and a daughter aged about 11 years and 13 years respectively. The accused-applicant no. 2 is the second daughter of Sri Yadav Singh, She completed her MBBS in 2008 and thereafter had got married to Sri Narender Kumar Singh, IPS (JH-2006) on 19.11.2008. She has two sons aged about 8 years and 6 years respectively. The accused-applicant no. 3 is the son of Sri Yadav Singh. He did his B.Tech (Civil) in 2009 and joined as Manager Grade-I in Greater Noida Industrial Authority in 25.02.2010 and was working there in Division III. He has married Ms. Shreshtha since 14.02.2013. He has a son. They have been falsely implicated. 10. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 164 Cr.P.C. All the three accused were receiving salary as a Directors in respective companies and they indulged in fake transactions. Sunny Yadav in his individual capacity is shown to have availed unsecured loan of ₹ 8.80 lacs from Raghvendra Sharma, M/s. Arrow Distribution Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Countrywide Holding Pvt. Ltd. which was in fact accommodation entries by providing equivalent amount of cash. Thus, the bail of all the applicants should be rejected as they are involved in converting ill-gotten money of the main accused Yadav Singh into white money. 12. After having heard the rival contentions, we have found that the evidence which has been produced indicates that the main accused Yadav Singh and his family members are found to have disproportionate assets worth ₹ 23,15,41,514/- (512.66%) to his known sources of income either in his own name or in the name of his family members regarding which no satisfactory reply could be given by them. A large number of partnership firms and private companies have been alleged to have been established /created by the accused applicants as well as other co-accused, wife of the main accused Yadav Singh, Smt. Kusum Latae. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) Both the applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that if the aforesaid two applicants are having passports, they they shall surrender the same before the trial court concerned before their release and further they will not leave the country without the permission of this court. 15. As regards Sunny Yadav, we are not inclined to grant him bail, hence, his bail application is accordingly rejected. However, taking into account the order of the Apex Court passed on 14.3.2018 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.59 of 2018 (Garima Bhushan and others vs CBI), we deem it proper to gra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
